WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

, a very eminent painter, is supposed to have been born about 1611, at Antwerp; but the master from whom he received his instruction is not known. He studied entirely after nature, sketching every scene that afforded him pleasure, and his choice was exceedingly picturesque. His grounds are always agreeably broken, and he was particularly fond of describing slopes diversified with shrubs, plants, or trees, which conducted the eye to some building, ruin, grove, or piece of water, and frequently to a delicate remote distance; every object perspectively contributing to delude our observation to that point. The forms of his trees are not unlike Ruysdael and Dekker; and in all his pictures he shews an admirable knowledge of the chiaroscuro. His colouring is extremely good, and his skies evidently shew that he made nature his principal director, by the shape and disposition of his clouds, as also by those peculiar tints, by which he expressed the rising and setting of the sun, the morning and evening. His touch is light, free, and firm; and his paintings have a very striking effect, by the happy distribution of his light and shadow. The figures which he himself designed are but indifferent, which was a defect imputable to Claude Lorraine and Caspar Poussin, as well as to Hobbima; but the latter, conscious of his inability in that respect, admitted but few figures into his designs, and those he usually placed somewhat removed from the immediate view, at a prudent distance from the front line. However, most of his pictures were supplied with figures by Ostade, Teniers, and other very famous masters, which must always give them a great additional value. The works of Hobbima are now exceedingly scarce, and industriously sought for. A very fine landscape of his, the property of the late Edward Coxe, esq. was sold a few years ago for nearly 700l.

, of a noble family at Vienna, was born Feb. 24, 1580. After being eight years superintendant of Plaven in Saxony, he took holy orders at Prague in 1611. In 1613 he left Prague, and was appointed principal preacher to the elector of Saxony at Dresden, where he died March 4, 1645. He was a strenuous Lutheran, and wrote with as much zeal against Calvinists as Papists. His works, which are very numerous both in Latin and German, are not at this day much esteemed, or indeed known. Their titles, however, are given by the writers of his life, and among them we find, “Solida. detestatio Papas et Calvinistarum,” 4to. “Apologia pro B. Luthero contra Lampadium,” Leipsic, 1611, 4to. “Philosophise Aristotelicse, partes tres.” “Septem verborum Christi explicatio.” The greater part of his tracts appear evidently, from their titles, to be controversial.

, a philologer, was born at Nuremberg, but settled at Leyden, and is best known by his edition of Apollonius Rhodius, which was published there in 1641. This edition is generally esteemed for the beauty of the printing; but Ruhnkenius, in his second Epistola Critica, calls the editor “tetricum et ineptum Apollonii Commentatorem;” and his commentary has been censured also by Harwood, Harles, and other learned men. He published in 1628, a German translation of the Psalms, which has the credit of being accurate. He died in 1641.

, professor of Greek at Bale, was born in that city in 1635, and died there in 1706. Little besides is known of his history. His great work, the “Lexicon Universale Historico-Geographico-Poetico-Philosophico-Politico-Philologicnm,” was first published at Geneva, in 1677, in two volumes, folio. This being received by the learned with great avidity, he published, a few years after, a Supplement; which was also rapidly sold off. In 1698, some of the principal booksellers at Leyden, encouraged by this success of the work, and having received from the author all his subsequent collections, and many other additions from various learned men, digested the whole, with the Supplement, into one alphabet, and published it in four volumes, folio. In this form it is now known as a most useful book of reference, and finds a place in every learned library. For this edition the author wrote a new preface. He also published a “History of the Popes” in Latin, 1687, 2 vols. and “Historia Augusta,” 1687, fol.

The duke of Leeds has an original scene in the Beggars Opera, painted by Hogarth. It is that in which Lucy and Polly are on their knees before their respective fathers, to intercede for the life of* the hero of the piece. All the figures are either known or supposed to be portraits. If we are not misinformed, the late sir Thomas Robinson (better known perhaps by the name of long sir Thomas) is standing in one of the side-boxes. Macheath, unlike his spruce representative on our present stage, is a slouching bully; and Polly appears happily disencumbered of such a hoop as the daughter of Peachum within the reach of younger memories has worn. The duke gave 35l. for this picture at Mr. Rich’s auction. Another copy of the same scene was bought by the late Sir William Saunderson, and is now in the possession of sir Harry Gough. Mr. Walpoie has a picture of a scene in the same piece, where Macheath is going to execution. In this also the likenesses or' Walker and Miss Fenton, afterwards duchess of Bolton (the original Macheath and Polly) are preserved.

In 1733 his genius became conspicuously known. The third scene of his “Harlot’s Progress,” introduced him to the notice of the great. At a board of treasury which was held a day or two after the appearance of that print, a copy of it was shewn by one of the lords, as containing, among other excellencies, a striking likeness of sir John Gonson. It gave universal satisfaction: from the treasury each lord repaired to the print-shop for a copy of it, and Hogarth rose completely into fame.

, better known by his German name Hans Holbein, a most excellent painter, was born, according to some accounts, at Basil in Switzerland in 1498, but Charles Patin places his birth three years earlier, supposing it very improbable that he could have arrived at such maturity of judgment and perfection in painting, as he shewed in 1514 and 1516, if he had been born so late as 1498. He learned the rudiments of his art from his father John Holbein, who was a painter, and had removed from Augsburg to Basil; but the superiority of his genius soon raised him above his master. He painted our Saviour’s Passion in the town house of Basil; and in the fish-market of the same town, a Dance of peasants, and Death’s dance. These pieces were exceedingly striking to the curious; and Erasmus was so affected with them, that he requested of him to draw his picture, and was ever after his friend. Holbein, in the mean time, though a great genius and fine artist, had no elegance or delicacy of manners, but was given to wine and revelling company; for which he met with the following gentle rebuke from Erasmus. When Erasmus wrote his “Moriæ Encomium,” or “Panegyric upon Folly,” he sent a copy of it to Hans Holbein, who was so pleased with the several descriptions of folly there given, that he designed them all in the margin; and where he had not room to draw the whole figures, pasted a piece of paper to the leaves. He then returned the book to Erasmus, who seeing that he had represented an amorous fool by the figure of a fat Dutch lover, hugging his bottle and his lass, wrote under it, “Hans Holbein,” and so sent it back to the painter. Holbein, however, to be revenged of him, drew the picture of Erasmus for a musty book-worm, who busied himself in scraping together old M'Ss. and antiquities, and wrote. under it “Adagia.”

After almost begging his way to England, as Patin tells us, he found an easy admittance to the lord-chancellor, sir Thomas More, having brought with him Erasmus’s picture, and letters recommendatory from him to that great man. Sir Thomas received him with all the joy imaginable, and kept him in his house between two and three years; during which time he drew sir Thomas’s picture, and those of many of his friends and relations. One clay Holbein happening to mention the nobleman who had some years ago invited him to England, sir Thomas was very solicitous to know who he was. Holbein replied, that he had indeed forgot his title, but remembered his face so well, that he thought he could draw his likeness; and this he did so very strongly, that the nobleman, it is said, was immediately known by it. This nobleman some think was the earl of Arundel, others the earl of Surrey. The chancellor, having now sufficiently enriched his apartments with Holbein’s productions, adopted the following method to introduce him to Henry VIII. He invited the king to an entertainment, and hung up all Holbein’s pieces, disposed in the best order, and in the best light, in the great hall of his house. The king, upon his first entrance, was so charmed with the sight of them, that he asked, “Whether such an artist were now alive, and to be had for money?” on which sir Thomas presented Holbein to the king, who immediately took him into his service, with a salary of 200 florins, and brought him into great esteem with the nobility of the kingdom. The king from time to time manifested the greac value he had for him, and upon the death of queen Jane, his third wife, sent him into Flanders, to draw the picture of the duchess dowager of Milan, widowto Francis Sforza, whom the emperor Charles V. had recommended to him for a fourth wife; but the king’s defection from the see of Rome happening about that time, he rather chose to match with a protestant princess. Cromwell, then his prime minister (for sir Thomas More had been removed, and beheaded), proposed Anne of Cleves to him; but the king was not inclined to the match, till her picture, which Holbein had also drawn, was presented to him. There, as lord Herbert of Cherbnry says, she was represented so very charming, that the king immediately resolved to marry her; and thus Holbein was unwittingly the cause of the ruin of his patron Cromwell, whom the king never forgave for introducing him to Anne of Cleves.

, an English historian, and famous for the Chronicles that go under his name, was descended from a family which lived at Bosely, in Cheshire: but neither the place nor time of his birth, nor scarcely any other circumstances of his life, are known. Some say he had an university education, and was a clergyman; while others, denying this, affirm that he was steward to Thomas Burdett, of Bromcote in the county of Warwick, esq. Be this as it will, he appears to have been a man of considerable learning, and to have had a particular turn for history. His “Chronicles” were first published in 1577, in 2 vols. folio; and then in 1587, in three, the two first of which are commonly bound together. In this second edition several sheets were castrated in the second and third volumes, because there were passages in them disagreeable to queen Elizabeth and her ministry: but the castrations were reprinted apart in 1723. Holinshed was not the sole author or compiler of this work, but was assisted in it by several other writers. The first volume opens with “An historical Description of the Island of Britaine, in three books,” by William Harrison; and then, “The Hislorie of England, from the time that it was first inhabited, until the time that it was last conquered,” by R. Holinshed. The second volume contains, “The description, conquest, inhabitation, and troublesome estate of Ireland; particularly the description of that kingdom:” by Richard Stanihurst. “The Conquest of Ireland, translated from the Latin of Giraldus Cambrensis,” by John Hooker, alias Vowell, of Exeter, gent. “The Chronicles of Ireland, beginning where Giraldus did end, continued untill the year 1509, from Philip Flatsburie, Henrie of Marleborow, Edmund Campian,” &c. by R. Holinshed; and from thence to 1586, by R. Stanihurst and J. Hooker. “The Description of Scotland, translated from the Latin of Hector Boethius,” by R. H. or W. H. “The Historie of Scotland, conteining the beginning, increase, proceedings, continuance, acts and government of the Scottish nation, from the original thereof unto the yeere 1571,” gathered by Raphael Holinshed, and continued from 1571 to 1586, by Francis Boteville, alias Thin, and others. The third volume begins at “Duke William the Norman, commonly called the Conqueror; and descends by degrees of yeeres to all the kings and queenes of England.” First compiled by R. Holinshed, and by him extended to 1577; augmented and continued to 1586, by John Stow, Fr. Thin, Abraham Fleming, and others. The time of this historian’s death is unknown; but it appears from his will, which Hearne prefixed to his edition of Camden’s “Annals,” that it happened between 1578 and 1582.

Mr. Grose, from the information of Oldys, has favoured the public with some anecdotes of the conscientiousness of this eminent artist which are not noticed by Vertue. He used to work for the booksellers at the rate of four-pence an hour; and always had an hour-glass before him. He was so very scrupulously exact, that, when obliged to attend the calls of nature, or whilst talking, though with persons for whom he was working, and about their own business, he constantly laid down the glass, to prevent the sand from running. It is to be lamented that such a man should have known distress. His works amount, according to Yertue’s catalogue, to nearly 2400 prints. They are generally etchings performed almost entirely with the point, yet possess great spirit, with astonishing freedom and lightness, especially when we consider how highly be has finished some of them. In drawing the human figure he was most defective; his outlines are stiff and incorrect, and the extremities marked without the least degree of knowledge. In some few instances, he had attempted to execute his plates with the graver only: but in that has failed very much.

His first publication was a sermon preached before the university of Oxford, entitled “The Resurrection of the body deduced from the Resurrection of Christ,” 1777, 4to, a very ingenious discourse, in which the subject is illustrated in a manner somewhat new. In the same year he published “Alfred, an Ode, with six Sonnets,” 4to, in which Gray’s style is attempted with considerable success. In 1782 he was chosen the third Bampton lecturer, and in 1783 published his eight lectures “on the prophecies and testimony of John the Baptist, and the parallel prophecies of Jesus Christ,” in which he displayed great abilities and judgment. These were followed, in 1788, by a very able defence of some of the essential doctrines of the church, respecting the nature and person, death and sufferings of Christ, in “Four Tracts; on the principle of religion, as a test of divine authority; on the principle of redemption; on the angelical message to the Virgin Mary, and on the resurrection of the body; with a discourse on humility,” 8vo, the whole illustrated by notes and authorities. He published also one or two other single sermons, and an ode for the enccenia at the installation of the duke of Portland in 1793; but what confers the highest honour on his abilities, critical talents, and industry, was his collation of the Mss. of the Septuagint version, which he appears to have begun about 1786. Induced to think that the means of determining the genuine tenor of the Scriptural text would be much enlarged if the Mss. of the Septuagint version were carefully collated, as those of the Hebrew had been, and the collations published in one view, he laid down his plan, the essential parts of which were: that all Mss. known or discoverable at home or abroad, if prior to the invention of printing, should be carefully collated with one printed text; and all particularities in which they differed from it distinctly noted; that printed editions and versions made from all or parts of that by the seventy, and citations from it by ecclesiastical writers (with a distinction of those who wrote before the time of Aquila or after it), should also be collated with the same printed text, and all their variations from it respectively ascertained; and that these materials, when collected, should all be reduced to one plain view, and printed under the text with which the several collations have been made, as by Dr. Kennicott or without the text, as by De Rossi. Upon these general principles, Dr. Holmes embarked on his enterprize, having in the first instance been patronized by the delegates of the Clarendon press, and by liberal subscriptions from other universities, and the public aflarge. The delegates of the press agreed to allow him 40l. a year for three years, “on his exhibiting to them his collations annually, to be deposited in the Bodleian library, and when the whole was finished, to be printed at the university press, at his expen -;e, airj for his benefit, or of his assigns, if he should live to complete his collations; or if they were left imperfect, they were to be at the discretion of the delegates, they undertaking to promote the finishing of them to the best of their power, and to publish them when finished, allowing to his assigns a just proportion of the profits.”

, author of the first Latin grammar of any noie in England, was a native of the county of Sussex, flourished about the latter part of the fifteenth century. After having been for some time usher of the school next to Magdalen college gate in Oxford, he took his degree of B. A. and in 1491 was admitted fellow of that college. He afterwards completed his degrees in arts, and commenced schoolmaster, in which capacity he acquired great reputation, and prepared for college many students, who were afterwards men of eminence. When he died is unknown, but he was alive in 1511. The grammar he published was entitled “Lac Puesorum. M. Holti. Mylke for chyldren,” 4to, printed by Wynkyn de Wprde, 1497. It is dedicated to Morton archbishop of Canterbury, and has some very elegant Latin verses by sir Thomas More, when he was a young man. The only copy known is in Mr. Heber’s fine collection. This grammar, the first methodical piece of the kind for the use of schools, was long followed by John Stanbridge, Robert Whittington, William Lily, Leonard Cox, Henry Prime, and other schoolmasters.

, a learned English gentleman, well known in the history of British India, was the son of Zephaniah Holwell, timber-merchant and citizen of London, and grandson of John Holwell, a mathematical writer of much fame in the seventeenth century. The father and grandfather of this John Holwell both fell in support of the royal cause during the usurpation, and the family estate of Holwell-hall, in Devonshire, was lost to their descendants for ever; for although Mr. Holwell applied to king Charles at the restoration, the only recompense he obtained was to be appointed royal astronomer and surveyor of the crown lands, and the advancement of his wife to a place of some honour, but of little emolument, about the person of the queen. Some years after he was appointed mathematical preceptor to the duke of Monmouth, for whom he conceived a warm attachment, and, believing him to be the legitimate sou of the king, was induced to take a very active and imprudent part against the succession of the duke of York, which in the end proved his ruin. Having published in 1683 a small Latin tract called “Catastrophe Mundi,” which was soon after translated, and is a severe attack on the popish party, he was marked for destruction as soon as the duke of York came to the throne. Accordingly, in 1685, it was contrived that, in quality of surveyor to the crown, he should be sent to America, to survey and lay down a chart of the town of New York; and at the same time secret orders were sent to the government agents there, to take some effectual means to prevent his return. In consequence of this, it is said, that he had no sooner executed his commission, than he died suddenly, and his death was attributed, at the time and on the spot, to the application of poison administered to him in a dish of coffee. His son was father to the subject of the present article.

His works consist of twenty sermons, published at different times. “Technogamia, or the Marriage of Arts, a comedy,” 1630*. “Philosophise polito-barbarae specimen, in quo de anima & ejus habitibus intellectualibus qiuBstiones aliquot libris duobus illustrantur,” 1633, 4to. “Survey of the World, in ten books, a poem,” 1661, 8vo. But the work he is known for now is his “Translation of the Satires of Juvenal and Persius;” for though his poetry is but indifferent, his translation is allowed to be faithful, and his notes good. The second edition of his “Persius” was published in 1616; and the fourth at the end of the “Satires of Juvenal illustrated, with notes and sculptures,” 1673, folio. Dryden, in the dedication of his “Translation of Juvenal and Persius,” makes the following critique upon our author’s performance: “If/' says he,” rendering the exact sense of these authors, almost line for line, had been our business, Barten Holyday had done it already to our hands; and by the help of his learned notes and illustrations, not only Juvenal and Persius, but (what is yet more obscure) his own verses might be understood.“Speaking, a little further on, of close and literal translation, he adds, that” Holyday, who made this way his choice, seized the meaning of Juvenal, but the poetry has always escaped him.“In his account of Holyday’s writings, Wood has omitted an instructive and entertaining little work entitled” Comes jucundus in via," which he published anonymously in 1658. In the latter part of the second address to the reader, there is a quaint allusion to his name.

, was a protestant minister of a distinguished family in Scotland, but educated in France, where he passed the chief part of his life. James I. employed him to reconcile the differences between Tilenus and du Moulin, on the subject of justification; and, if possible, to reconcile the protestants throughout Europe to one single form of doctrine; but this was found impracticable. The chief work of Home is, his, 1. “Apologia Basilica; seu Machiavelli ingenium examinatum,” 1626, 4to. There are attributed to him also, 2. “Le contr' Assassin, ou reponse a TApologie des Jesuites,” Geneve, 1612, in 8vo. 3. “L'Assassinat du Roi, ou maximes du Viel de la Montagne, pratiquees en la personne de defunt Henri le Grand,” 1617, 8vo. He is also the author of several conipositions in the “Delicise Poetarum Scotorum.” The times of his birth and death are not known,

The greater part of lord Kames’s works had hitherto been connected with his profession, but in 1761 he published a small volume on the elementary principles of education, entitled an “Introduction to the art of Thinking,” This has often been reprinted as an useful manual for young persons, although some parts of it are rather above their comprehension. In 1762 he published, in 3 vols. 8vo, his “Elements of Criticism,” the work, which, of all others, is best known in England. We cannot, however, agree with his biographer, that it entitles him to be considered as the inventor of philosophical criticism, although he has unquestionably done much to advance it, and some of his principles have been followed by subsequent writers on the subject. Blair is evidently much indebted to him.

, a clergyman of the church of Scotland, but known only as a dramatic writer, was born in the vicinity of Ancrum in Roxburghshire, Scotland, in 1724, and was educated at the parish school, whence he went to the university of Edinburgh, and went through the usual academical course, as preparatory for his entering the church. Here his studies were for some time suspended by the rebellion in 1745. On the approach of the rebels, the citizens of Edinburgh assembled, and formed themselves into an association for the support of their sovereign, and the defence of their city. Mr. Home, having once taken up arms in this cause, was not to be deterred by danger, and inarched with a detachment of the royal army to Falkirk, where he was taken prisoner in the battle fought in that neighbourhood, and confined for some time in the castle of Donne. He contrived, however, to make his escape about the time that tranquillity was restored to the country by the battle of Culloclen; and having resumed his studies, was licensed to preach the gospel in 1747.

Homer had the most sublime and universal genius that the world has ever seen; and though it is an extravagance of enthusiasm to say, as some of the Greeks did, that all knowledge may be found in his writings, no man penetrated deeper into the feelings and passions of humaa nature. He represents great things with such sublimity, and inferior objects with such propriety, that he always makes the one admirable, and the other pleasing. Strabo, whose authority in geography is indisputable, assures us, that Homer has described the places and countries, of which he gives an account, with such accuracy, that no man can imagine who has not seen them, and no man can observe without admiration and astonishment. Nothing, however, can be more absurd, than the attempts of some critics, who have possessed more learning and science than taste, to rest the merit of Homer upon the extent of his knowledge. An ancient encomiast upon Homer proves him to have possessed a perfect knowledge of nature, and to have been the author of the doctrine of Thales and Xenophanes, that water is the first principle of all things, from his having called Oceanus the parent of nature; and infers, that he was acquainted with Empedocles’ doctrine of friendship end discord, from the visit which Juno pays to Oceanus and Thetis to settle their dispute: because Homer represents Neptune as shaking the earth, he concludes him to have been well acquainted with the causes of earthquakes; and because he speaks of the great bear as never touching the horizon, he makes him an eminent astronomer. The truth is, the knowledge of nature, which poetry describes, is very different from that which belongs to the philosopher. It would be easy to prove, from the beautiful similes of Homer, that he was an accurate observer of natural appearances; and to show from his delineation of characters, that he was intimately acquainted with human nature. But he is not, on this account, to be ranked with natural philosophers or moralists. Much pains have been taken to prove, that Homer expresses just and sublime conceptions of the divine nature. And it will be acknowledged, that, in some passages, he speaks of Jupiter in language which may not improperly be applied to the Supreme Deity. But, if the whole fable of Jupiter, as it is represented in Homer, be fairly examined, it will be very evident, either that he had not just conceptions of the divine nature, or that he did not mean to express them in the portrait which he has drawn of the son of Saturn, the husband of Juno, and the president of the council of Olympus. It would surely have been too great a monopoly of perfection, if the first poet in the world had also been the first philosopher. Homer has had his enemies; and it is certain, that Plato banished his writings from his commonwealth; but lest this should be thought a blemish upon the memory of the poet, we are told that the true reason was, because he did not esteem the common people to be capable readers of them. They would be apt to pervert his meaning, and have wrong notions of God and religion, by taking his bold and beautiful allegories in a literal sense. Plato frequently declares, that he loves and admires him as the best, the most pleasant, and divine of all poets, and studiously imitates his figurative and mystical way of writing: and though he forbad his works to be read in public, yet he would never be without them in his closet. But the most memorable enemy to the merits of Homer was Zoilus, a snarling critic, who frequented the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and wrote ill-natured notes upon his poems, but received no encouragement from that prince; on the contrary, he became universally despised for his pains, and was at length put, as some say, to a most miserable death. It is said that though Homer’s poems were at first published all in one piece, and not divided into books, yet every one not being able to purchase them entire, they were circulated in separate pieces; and each of those pieces took its name from the contents, as, “The Battle of the Ships;” “The Death of Dolon;” “The Valour of Agamemnon;” “The Grot of Calypso;” “The Slaughter of the Wooers,” &c. nor were these entitled books, but rhapsodies, as they were afterwards called, when they were divided into books. Homer’s poems were not known entire in Greece before the time of Lycurgus; whither that law-giver being in Ionia carried them, after he had taken the pains to transcribe them from perfect copies with his own hands. This may be called the first edition of Homer that appeared in Greece, and the time of its appearing there was about 120 years before Rome was built, that is, about 200 years after the time of Homer. It has been said, that the “Iliad” and “Odyssey” were not composed by Homer in their present form, but only in separate little poems, which being put together and connected afterwards by some other person, make the entire works they now appear; but this is so extravagant a conceit that it scarceJy deserves to be mentioned.

, another artist, well known in this kingdom, was born at Rotterdam in 1638, according to the most authentic writers, though Descamps fixes his birth in 1650. He appears to have been an universal master, painting, with equal readiness, landscapes, animals of all kinds, particularly dogs, huntings of wild animals, boars, deer, wolves, and foxes, as also conversations and fowls; but his favourite subjects were huntings. His manner seems peculiar to himself; it was bold and free; and, except Rubens and Snyders, few masters have painted animals in a greater style, or with more spirit. There is certainly a great deal of fire in his compositions; but his colouring is often extravagant, and his drawing extremely incorrect. In general his pencilling was harsh, and he delighted in a fiery tint; yet some of his small pictures are very neatly finished. There is a great inequality as to the merit of the works of Hondius, some of them being in every respect abundantly superior to others; but there is scarce any master whose compositions are so easily distinguishable as those of Hondius, by certain particularities in his touch, his taste of design, and his colouring.

Several of his pictures of dogs are much esteemed; and one especially is mentioned, in which he represented thirty different species of those animals, all being well designed, and every distinct animal being characterised with some peculiar air, action, expression, or attitude. As he was exceedingly harassed and tormented with the gout, the works of his latter time are more negligently executed than those which he finished in his prime; and, therefore, they very much contribute to lessen the reputation he had acquired by some of his more studied and better finished performances. His most capital picture is the burning of Troy, in which there are a variety of figures, many of them well designed, and disposed with judgment. Houbraken also mentions a candle-light of this master’s hand, in which appeared a fine opposition of light and shadow, and the figures were extremely well designed and well coloured. When he came to England is not known. Vertue says he was a man of humour. He lived on Ludgate-hill, but died of a severe fit of the gout in 1695 at the Blackmoor’s head, over against Water-lane, Fleet-street. Iodocus or Jesse Hondius is supposed to have been his grandfather. He was born at Wackerne, a small town in Flanders, in 1563, and died in 1611. He was a self-taught engraver both on copper and ivory, and a letter-founder; in all which branches he attained great excellence. He studied geography also, and in 1607 published a work entitled “Descriptio Geographica orbis terrarum,” in folio.

, whose proper name was Blaize Vauzelle, was born July 4, 1651, at Limoges. He made profession among the Carmelites at Toulouse, in 1671; taught theology with reputation in his order, in which he was prior, counsellor, provincial, and visitorgeneral of the three provinces of France. He died 1729, at Lisle, aged seventy-eight. His most curious work is entitled “Reflexions sur les regies, et sur l'usage de la Critique,” 3 vols. 4to; the first volume is most esteemed. He also left, “La Tradition des Peres, et des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, sur la Contemplation^ avec un Traite sur les motifs, et la pratique, de l'Amour Divin,” 3 vols. 12mo; “Traite des Indulgences et du Jubile,” 12mo; <( Dissertations historiques et critiques sur les Ordres militaires," 1718, 4to. He wrote some pieces in favour of the Formulary, and the constitution Unigenitus, &c. 2 Hontan (The Baron de), was a native of Gascony, in the seventeenth century, and is principally known by his travels in North America, which, however, are written in an embarrassed and barbarous style, confounding truth and falsehood, disfiguring names, and disguising facts. They contain some episodes of pure fiction, particularly the narrative of the voyage up the long river, which is supposed to be of equal authority with the Voyage to Lilliput. He describes, nevertheless, with some success, the general face of the country, and the disposition, customs, government, and other particulars of the inhabitants. There is an edition of his travels published at Amsterdam in 1705, 2 vols. 12mo. He began his career in Canada as a common soldier, was raised to the rank of an officer, went to Newfoundland in the quality of royal lieutenant, there quarrelled with the governor, was broken, and retired first to Portugal, and finally to Denmark.

His pencil is free and firm, and his colouring has a great deal of force, although it often is not pleasing, by a predominancy of the yellow and brown tints; yet undoubtedly Honthorst would have been an excellent painter if he had known how to give more grace and more correctness to his figures. At his return from London to Holland he adorned the pleasure houses of the prince of Orange with many poetical subjects, which he executed in fresco as well as in oil; but he principally was employed in painting portraits, which are described as having good expression, and extraordinary life and force, by their broad masses of light being contrasted by strong shadows. He died in 1660, aged sixty-eight. His brother, William, was born at Utrecht in 1604, and learned the art of painting from Abraham Bloemart. The portraits which he painted were very much esteemed, and are far superior to his historical subjects, which are in no degree equal to those of Gerard, although they are frequently sold for the works of that master. He died in 1683, aged seventy-nine.

, a very celebrated Dutch philologer, was born at Leyden, in the latter end of January 1712. His parents were poor, but of great probity; and, had it not been for a very laudable ambition in his father to make his son a scholar, the obscurity of a mechanical trade would probably have concealed his powers through life. At ten years of age he was sent to school, but for a considerable time gave not the slightest proof of talents for literature, so completely depressed was he by the wanton tyranny of a severe master. When at length he was removed into another class, and was under a milder teacher, his powers began to expand, and he took the lead among those of his standing, instead of holding an inferior place. So early as at fifteen he began the task of teaching others, to alleviate the expences of his parents, being now highly qualified for such an undertaking. He was employed in teaching the inferior classes of the school to which he still belonged. While he was yet employed in his studies, he lost his father; but this misfortune rather redoubled his efforts than subdued his spirit. In 1732, before he had exceeded his twentieth year, he obtained the appointment of co-rector (or under-master) at Gorcum. Within nine months the magistrates of the city of Woerden gave him an appointment there, which induced him to think of matrimony. He married in March 1733, and began the care of this school in May, the same year. By this wife, who died in 1738, he had three sons and two daughters. In the same year he was solicited by the magistrates of Culembourg to undertake the care of their school, to which, with much reluctance in leaving his former situation, he at length consented. Here he took a second wife, who produced him eight children; and here, notwithstanding solicitations from other places, he continued for several years. At length, much fatigued by incessant attention to a great number of scholars, he went in 1745 to Breda, on a more liberal appointment. The very next year, Breda being harassed by a French invasion, Hoogeveen was obliged to send his collection of books to Leyden, and literary pursuits were at a stand. He remained, however, sixteen years at Breda, and had determined there to end his days, but Providence decided otherwise. The malice and turbulence of a person who had taken up some unreasonable cause of offence against him, inclined him to leave Breda. His intention being known, he was liberally invited to Dort, whither he transferred his residence in 1761. From this place, after living there three years, he was in a manner forced away by the importunity and liberality of the city of Delft. On his first arrival there, he encountered some difficulties from calumny and malice, but he weathered the storm, and remained there the remainder of his life in peace and honour. He died about Nov. 1, 1794, leaving some surviving children by both his marriages.

Waller, the writer of his life, has given the following character of him, which, though not an amiable one, seems to be drawn with candour and impartiality. He was in person but a despicable figure; short of stature, very crooked, pale, lean, and of a meagre aspect, with dark brown hair, very long, and hanging over his face, uncut, and lank. Suitable to this person, his temper was penurious, melancholy, mistrustful, and jealous; which qualities increased upon him with his years. He set out in his youth with a collegiate or rather a monastic recluseness, and afterwards led the life of a cynical hermit; scarcely allowing himself necessaries, notwithstanding the great increase of his fortunes after the fire in London . He declared sometimes, that he had a great project in his head as to the disposal of his estate, for the advancement of natural knowledge, and to promote the ends and designs for which the Royal Society was instituted; to build a handsome fabric for the society’s use, with a library, repository, laboratory, and other conveniences for making experiments; and to found and endow a physico-mechanic lecture like that of sir John Cutler. But though he was often solicited by his friends to put his designs down in writing, and make his will as to the disposal of his estate, yet he could never be prevailed on to do it, but died without any will that could be found. In like manner, with respect to his philosophical treasures, when he first became known to the learned world, he was very communicative of his inventions and discoveries, but afterwards grew close and reserved to a fault; alleclging for an excuse, that some persons challenged his discoveries for their own, and took occasion from his hints to perfect what he had not finished. For this reason he would suggest nothing, till he had time to perfect it himself; so that many things are lost which he affirmed he knew, though he was not supposed to know every thing which he affirmed. For instance, not many weeks before his death, he told Mr. Waller and others, that he knew a certain and infallible method of discovering the longitude at sea; yet it is evident that his friends distrusted his asseveration of this discovery; and how little credit was then given to it in general, appears from Waller’s own account. “Hooke,” says he, “suffering this invention to be undiscovered to the last, gave some persons cause to question, whether he was ever the possessor of it; and to doubt whether what in theory seemed very promising, would answer when put in practice. Others indeed more severely judged, that it was only a kind of boasting in him to assert that which had not been performed though attempted by many.” In the religious part of his character he was so far exemplary, that he always expressed a great veneration for the Deity, and seldom received any remarkable benefit in life, or made any considerable discovery in nature, or invented any useful contrivance, or found out any difficult problem, without setting down his acknowledgment to God, as many places in his diary plainly shew. He frequently studied the sacred writings in the originals; for he vvas acquainted with the ancient languages, as well as with all the parts of mathematics. “To conclude,” says Waller, “all Ins errors and blemishes were more than made amends for by the greatness and extent of his natural and acquired p-trts, and more than common if not wonderful sagacity, in diving into the most hidden secrets of nature, and in contriving proper methods of forcing her to confess the truth, by driving and pursuing the Proteus through all her changes to her last and utmost recesses. There needs no other proof of this, than the great number of experiments he made, with the contrivances for them, amounting to some hundreds; his new and useful instruments and inventions, which were numerous; his admirable facility and clearness in explaining the phenomena of nature, and demonstrating his assertions; his happy talent in adapting theories to the phenomena observed, and contriving easy and plain, not pompous and amusing, experiments to back and prove those theories; proceeding from obsenations to theories, and from theories to farther trials, which he asserted to be the most proper method to succeed in the interpretation of nature. For these his happy qualifications he was much respected by the most learned philosophers at home and abroad; and as with all his failures he may be reckoned among the great men of the last age, so, had he been free from them, possibly he might have stood in the front.”

, an eminent English divine, and author of an excellent work, entitled “The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, in eight books,” was born at Heavytree near Exeter, about the end of March 1554. His parents, not being rich, intended him for a trade; but his schoolmaster at Exeter prevailed with them to continue him at school, assuring them, that his natural endowments and learning were both so remarkable, that he must of necessity be taken notice of, and that God would provide him some patron who would free them from any future care or charge about him. Accordingly his uncle John Hooker, the subject of the preceding article, who was then chamberlain of the town, began to notice him; and being known to Jewell, made a visit to that prelate at Salisbury soon after, and “besought him for charity’s sake to look favourably upon a poor nephew of his, whom nature had fitted for a scholar; bill the estate of his parents was so narrow, that they were unable to give him the advantage of learning; and that the bishop therefore would become his patron, and prevent him from being a tradesman, for he was a boy of remarkable hopes.” The bishop examining into his merits, found him to be what the uncle had represented him, and took him immediately under his protection. He got him admitted, in 1567, one of the clerks of Corpus-Christi college in Oxford, and settled a pension on him; which, with the contributions of his uncle, afforded him a very comfortable subsistence. In 1571, Hooker had the misfortune to lose his patron, together with his pension. Providence, however, raised him up two other patrons, in Dr. Cole, then president of the college, and Dr. Edwyn Sandys, bishop of London, and afterwards archbishop of York. To the latter of these Jewell had recommended him so effectually before his death, that though of Cambridge himself, he immediately resolved to send his son Edwyn to Oxford, to be pupil to Hooker, who yet was not much older; for, said he, “I will have a tutor for my son, that shall teach him learning by instruction, and virtue by example.” Hooker had also another considerable pupil, namely, George Cranmer, grand nephew to Cranmer the archbishop and martyr; with whom, as well as with Sandys, he cultivated a strict and lasting friendship. In 1573, he was chosen scholar of Corpus, and in 1577, having taken his master’s degree, was elected fellow of his college; and about two years after, being well skilled in the Oriental languages, was appointed deputy-professor of Hebrew, in the room of Kingsmill, who was disordered in his senses. In 1581, he entered into orders; and soon after, being appointed to preach at St. Paul’s-cross in London, was so unhappy as to be drawn into a most unfortunate marriage; of which, as it is one of the most memorable circumstances of his life, we shall give the particulars as they are related by Walton. There was then belonging to the church of St. Paul’s, a house called the Shunamites house, set apart for the reception and entertainment of the preachers at St. Paul’s cross, two days before, and one day after the sermon. That house was then kept by Mr. John Churchman, formerly a substantial draper in Watluig-sti'eet, but now reduced to poverty. Walton says, that Churchman was a person of virtue, but that he cannot say quite so much of his wife. To this house Hooker came from Oxford so wet and weary, that he was afraid he should not be able to perform his duty the Sunday following: Mrs. Churchman, however, nursed him so well, mat he presently recovered from the ill effects of his journey. For this he was very thankful; so much indeed that, as Walton expresses it, be thought himself bound in conscience to believe all she said; so the good man came to be persuaded by her, “that he had a very tender constitution; and that it was best for him to have a wife, that might prove a nurse to him; such a one as might both prolong his life, and make it more comfortable; and such a one she could and would provide for him, if he thought fit to marry.” Hooker, not considering “that the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light,” and fearing no guile, because he meant none, gave her a power to choose a wife for him; promising, upon a fair summons, to return to London, and accept of her choice, which he did in that or the year following. Now, says Walton, the wife provided for him was her daughter Joan, who brought him neither beauty nor portion; and for her conditions, they were too like that wife’s which Solomon compares to a dripping-house; that is, says Wood, she was “a clownish silly woman, and withal a mere Xantippe.”

But whatever value Hooker himself might put upon his books of “Ecclesiastical JPolity,” he could not in that respect exceed the estimate which has been formed by the general judgment of mankind, with the exception only of the enemies of our church establishment. This work has ever been admired for soundness of reasoning, and prodigious extent of learning; and the author has universally acquired from it the honourable titles of “the judicious,” and “the learned.” When James I. ascended the throne of England, he is said to have asked Whitgift for his friend Mr. Hooker, from whose books of “Ecclesiastical Polity” he had so much profited; and being informed by the archbishop that he died a year before the queen, he expressed the greatest disappointment, and the deepest concern. Charles I. it is well known, earnestly recommended the reading of Hooker’s books to his son; and they have ever since been held in the highest veneration and esteem by all. An anecdote is preserved by the writer of his life, which, if true, shews that his fame was by no means confined to his own country, but reached even the ears of the pope himself. Cardinal ALen and Dr. Stapleton, though both in Italy when his books were published, were yet so affected with the fame of them, that they contrived to have them sent for; and after reading them, are said to have told the pope, then Clement VIII. that “though his holiness had not yet met with an English book, as he was pleased to say, whose writer deserved the name of an author, yet there now appeared a wonder to them, and so they did not doubt it would appear to his holiness, if it was in Latin; which was, that ‘a pure obscure English priest had written four such books of law and church polity, in so majestic a style, and with such clear demonstrations of reason,’ that in all their readings they had not met with any thing that exceeded him.” This begetting in the pope a desire tq know the contents, Stapleton read to him the first book in Latin upon which the pope said, “there is no learning that this man hath not searched into nothing too hard for his understanding. This man indeed deserves the name of an author. His books will get reverence by age; for there is in them such seeds of eternity, that if the rest be like this, they shall continue till the last fire shall devour all learning;” all which, whether the pope said it or no, we take to be strictly true.

Bmtus about this time going to Macedonia, as he passed through Athens, took several young gentlemen to the army with him; and Horace, now grown up, and qualified to set out into the world, among the rest. Brutus made hima tribune, but he did not distinguish himselffor courage, as at the battle of Philippi he left the field and fled, after he had shamefully flung away his shield. This memorable circumstance of his life he mentions himself, in an Ode to his friend Pompeius Varus, who was with him in the same battle of Philippi, and accompanied him in his flight: but though running away might possibly save his life, it could not secure his fortune, which he forfeited; and being thus reduced to want, he applied himself to poetry, in which he succeeded so well, that he soon made himself known to some of the greatest men in Rome. Virgil, as hei has told us, was the first that recommended him to Macenas and this celebrated patron of learning and learned men grew so fond of him, that he became a suitor for him to Augustus, and succeeded in getting his estate restored. Augustus; highly pleased with his merit and address, admitted him to a close familiarity with him in his private hours, and afterwards made him no small offers of preferment, all which the poet had the greatness of mind to refuse and the prince generosity enough not to be offended at his freedom. It is a sufficient proof of his indifference to the pride of a court, that he refused a place so honourable and advantageous as that of secretary to Augustus. But he had a strong partiality to- retirement and study, free from the noise of hurry and ambition, although his life does not appear to have been untainted by the follies of his youth and nation.

When Horace was about twenty-six years of age, Augustus found it necessary to make peace with Antony, that theypmight unite against Pompey, their common enemy; and for this end persons were sent to Brundusium as deputies, to conclude the treaty between them. Maecenas going on Caesar’s part, Horace, Virgil, and some others, accompanied him thither: and Horace has given a very entertaining description of the journey in the fifth Satire of his first book. This happened in Poilio’s consulship, who was about that time writing a history of the civil wars for the last twenty years; which occasioned Horace to address the first Ode of the second book to him, and to represent the many inconveniences to which such a work must necessafrily expose him, if impartial enough to assign the true causes of the civil war between Caesar and Pompey, and their motives for beginning it. From the notes of Dacier and Bentley, who have successfully fixed the time of his writing some Odes and Epistles, it appears, that before he was thirty years of age, he had introduced himself to the acquaintance of the most considerable persons in Rome; of which this Ode to Pollio may furnish a proof: for his merit must have been well known, and his reputation wellestablished, before he could so familiarly address one of Pollio’s high character: and he was too great a master in the science of men and manners, to have taken such a liberty if it had been inconsistent with propriety.

Of an author so well known, and whose merits have been so often and so minutely canvassed by classical critics, it would be unnecessary to say much in this place. Yet we know not how to refrain from adding the sentiments of an eminent living scholar, which cannot easily be rivalled for acuteness and elegance. The writings of Horace, says this learned critic, are familiar to us from our earliest boyhood, They carry with them attractions which are felt in every period of life, and almost every rank of society, They charm alike by the harmony of the numbers, and the pttrity of the fiction. They exhilarate the gay, and interest the serious, according to the different kinds of subjects upon which the poet is employed. Professing neither the precision of analysis, nor the copiousness of system, they have advantages, which, among the ordinary class of writers, analysis and system rarely attain. They exhibit human imperfections as they really are, and human excellence as it practically ought to be. They develope every principle of the virtuous in morals, and describe every modification of the decorous in manners. They please without the glare of ornament, and they instruct without the formality of precept. They are the produce of a mind enlightened by study, invigorated by observation; comprehensive, but not visionary; delicate, but not fastidious; too sagacious to be warped by prejudice, and too generous to be cramped by suspicion. They are distinguished by language adapted to the sentiment, and by effort proportioned to the occasion. They contain elegance without affectation, grandeur without bombast, satire without buffoonery, and philosophy without jargon. Hence it is that the writings of Horace are more extensively read, and more clearly understood, than those of almost any other classical author. The explanation of obscure passages, and the discussion of conjectural readings, form a part of the education which is given in our public schools. The merits of commentators, as well as of the poet himself, are the subjects of our conversation; and Horace, like our own countryman Shakspeare, has conferred celebrity upon many a scholar, who has been able to adjust his text, or to unfold his allusions. The works of some Roman and more Greek writers are involved in such obscurity, that no literary adventurer should presume to publish a variorum edition of them, unless he has explored the deepest recesses of criticism. But in respect to Horace, every man of letters knows where information is to be had, and every man of judgment will feel little difficulty in applying it to useful and even ornamental purposes.

, a learned English divine, was born at Haxay in Lincolnshire, in 1707. His father was vicar of Haxay, but both he and his wife died when their son was very young. The provision made for him was 400l. which barely defrayed the expence of his education, first at Epworth, and then at Gainsborough. He was then entered of Lincoln college, Oxford, where he obtained a small exhibition, but afterwards was elected to a fellowship of Magdalen, which extricated him from many difficulties, his poor inheritance having been long before expended. He took his master’s degree at Lincoln previous to this, in 1733, and when admitted into orders preached before the university with great approbation; and becoming known as a young man of much learning and personal merit, Dr. Smallbroke, bishop of Lichfield, who had appointed him his chaplain, collated him successively to the vicarage of Eccleshall, and the curacy of Gnosall, to which were afterwards added a canonry of Lichfield and the vicarage of Hanbury, on which last promotion he resigned Gnosall. The whole, however, of these preferments, even with the addition of his fellowship, were scarcely equal to his expences, for he had very little notion of accounts, or care about worldly things. He was afterwards promoted by his college to the rectory of Stanlake, and then quitted Eccleshall, preferring Stanlake from its retired situation, where he might indulge his favourite propensity to reading and meditation, and have easy access to his beloved Oxford. He took his degree of B. D. in 1743, and that of D. D. in 1745, and died at Stanlake, Jan. 22, 1773.

The character and conduct of Mr. Home were so much approved in the college to which he belonged, that on a vacancy happening in 1768, he was elected to the high office of president of that society. Nearly at the same time he married the daughter, of Philip Burton, esq. of Eltham, in Kent, by whom he had three. daughters. The public situation ‘of Mr. Home now made it proper for hint to proceed to the degree of doctor in divinity; and he was also appointed one of the chapla-ins to the king. In 1776 Dr. Home was elected vice chancellor of the university of Oxford, which office he held for the customary period of four years. In this situation he became known to lord North, the chancellor, and this, it is probable, prepared the way to his subsequent elevation. In 1781, the very year after the expiration of his office of vice-chancellor, he was made dean of Canterbury, and’ would williogly have relinquished his cares at Oxford, to reside altogether in. his native county of Kent; but he yielded to the judgment of a prudent friend who advised him. to retain his situation at Magdalen. In 1789, on the translation of bishop Bagot to St. Asaph, Dr. Home was advanced to the episcopal dignity, and succeeded him in the see of Norwich. Unhappily, though he was no more than fifty-nine, he had already begun to suffer much from infirmities. “Alas!” said he, observing the large flight of steps which lead into the palace of Norwich, “I am come to these steps at a time of life when I can neither go up them nor down them with safety.” It happened consequently, that the church could not long be benefited by his piety and zeal. Even the charge which he composed for his primary visitation at Norwich, he was unable to deliver, and it was printed “as intended to have been delivered.” From two visits to Bath he had received sensible benefit, and was meditating a third in the autumn of 179 I, which he had been requested not to delay too long. He did, however, delay it too long, and was visited by a paralytic stroke on the road to that place. He completed his journey, though very ill; and for a short time was so far recovered as to walk daily to the pump-room; but the hopes of his friends and family were of short duration, for, on the 17th of January, 1792, in the sixty-second year of his age, his death afforded an edifying example of Christian resignation and hope; and he was buried at Eltham in Kent, with a commendatory but very just epitaph, which is also put up in the cathedral at Norwich.

It cannot often fall to the lot of the biographer to record a man so blameless in character and conduct as bishop Home. Whatever might be his peculiar opinions on some points, he was undoubtedly a sincere and exemplary Christian; and as a scholar, a writer, and a preacher, a man of no ordinary qualifications. The cheerfulness of his disposition is often marked by the vivacity of his writings, and the sincerity of his heart is every where conspicuous in them. So far was he from any tincture of covetousness, that he laid up nothing from his preferments in the church. If he was no loser at the year’s end he was perfectly satisfied. What he gave away was bestowed with so much secrecy, that it was supposed by some persons to be little; but, after his death, when the pensioners, to whom he had been a constant benefactor, rose up to look about them for some other support, it began to be known who, and how many they were.

, a celebrated Danish astronomer, and professor of that science at Copenhagen, was born at Laegsted, in Jutland, in 1679. He studied at Aalburg under very unfavourable circumstances, beingobliged, at the same period, to submit to various kinds of labour. In 1714, he was appointed professor of mathematics at Copenhagen, and in 1725 he was elected a member of the Danish academy of sciences. He died in 1764. He was author of many works connected with his favourite pursuits, among which were “Copernicus Trinmphans, sive de Parallaxi Orbis Annui;” in which he shews himself an enthusiast for the system of Copernicus; the “Elements of Astronomy;” and “the Elements of Mathematics;” but he is best known in this country by his “Natural History of Iceland,” fol. 1758. His mathematical works were published in four vols, 4to, Copenhagen, 1735, &c.

, author of a very learned and excellent work, entitled, “Britannia Romana,” by which only he is known, is supposed to have been a native of Northumberland, where, at a village called Long-Horsley, near Morpeth, the family, in all probability, originated. This parent stock, if such it was, is now lost in the Witheringtons, by the marriage of the heiress of Long-Horsley, about the middle of this century, with a person of that name. We know only of two other branches; one settled in Yorkshire, the other in the West, from which latter, we understand the late learned bishop of St. Asaph to have sprung: but the branches have been so long separated, that they cannot trace their relationship to each other. John Horsley was educated in the public grammar-school at Newcastle, and afterwards in Scotland, where he took a degree; he was finally settled at Morpeth, and is said, in Hutchinson’s View of Northumberland, to have been pastor to a dissenting congregation in that place. The same author adds, from Randall’s manuscripts, that he died in 1732,­which was the same year in which his great work appeared; but the truth is, as we learn from the journals of the time, that he died Dec. 12, 1731, a short time before the publication of his book. He was a fellow of the royal society. A few letters from him to Roger Gale, esq. on antiquarian subjects, are inserted in Hutchinson’s book; they are all dated in 1729. His “Britannia Romana” gives a full and learned account of the remains and vestiges of the Romans in Britain. It is divided into three books; the first containing “the History of all the Roman Transactions in Britain, with an account of their legionary and auxiliary forces employed here, and a determination of the stations per lineam valli; also a large description of the Roman walls, with maps of the same, laid down from a geometrical survey.” The second book contains, “a complete collection of the Roman inscriptions and sculptures, which have hitherto been discovered in Britain, with the letters engraved in their proper shape, and proportionate size, and the reading placed under each; as also an historical account of them, with explanatory and critical observations.” The third book contains, “the Roman Geography of Britain, in which are given the originals of Ptolemy, Antonini Itinerarium, the Notitia, the anonymous Ravennas, and Peutinger’s Table, so far as they relate to this island, with particular essays on each of those ancient authors, and the several places in Britain mentioned by them,” with tables, indexes, &c. Such is the author’s own account in his title-page; and the learned of all countries have testified that the accuracy of the execution has equalled the excellence of the plan. The plates of this work were purchased of one of his descendants for twenty guineas by Dr. Giftbrd, for the British Museum, where is a copy of the work, with considerable additions by Dr. Ward.

Dr. Priestley, in his letters, had expressed a great desire to draw Dr. Horsley into a tedious controversy on the main question, the article of our Lord’s divinity, but our author, knowing that question to have been long since exhausted, and that nothing new was to be said on either side, chose, in his “Letters in Reply,” to adhere closely to his own main question. He, therefore, as we have mentioned, defended his own argument, and collected new specimens from Dr. Priestley’s new publication, of his utter inability to throw light upon the subject. Thus a useless and endless contention on the main question was avoided but many discussions necessarily arose upon secondary points, which perhaps the learned reader will es- 1 teem the most interesting parts of the controversy, such as, the authority of the writings that go under the name of the apostolical Fathers the rise of the two sects of the Nazarenes and Ebionites; the difference between the two and the difference of both from the orthodox Hebrew Christians; and particularly an article on the accusation of Tritheism, which Dr. Priestley had brought against the Trinitarians of the seventeenth century. The “Short Strictures on Dr. Priestley” in the appendix to these Letters, it is now known, were written by Dr. Townson.

He was much admired for his. talent in Latin and English poetry, and highly respected by the most eminent men of his time, Camclen, Selden, Daniel, Dr. Donne, sir Henry Wotton, sir Walter Raleigh, whose “History” he revised before it was sent to press; and others, particularly Ben Jonson, who used to say, “'t was he that polished me, I do acknowledge it.” Wood speaks of him, as the author of the Greek lexicon already mentioned, left in ms. and imperfeqj of several epigram-: and epitaphs, ill Latin and English, interspersed in various collections; “The Art of Memory,” in which he himself excelled and of some law treatises, in ms. which became the property of his grandson, sir John Hoskins, -knt. and bart. master in chancery, but better known to the world as a philosopher, and one of the first members of the royal society, of which he was president in 1682.

and certainly no person ever had a better right to assume that sublime device. This excellent magistrate, and truly, great man, died March 13, 1573, at the age of 68 years. “L' Hospital,” says Brantome, “was the greatest, worthiest, and most learned chancellor, that was ever known in France. His large white beard, pale countenance, austere manner, made all who saw him think they beheld a true portrait of St. Jerome, and he was called St. Jerome by the courtiers. All orders of men feared him; particularly the members of the courts of justice; and, when he examined them on their lives, their discharge of their duties, their capacities, or their knowledge, and particularly when he examined candidates for offices, and found them deficient, he made them feel it. He was profoundly vesrsed in polite learning, very eloquent, and an excellent pbdt^ His severity was never ill-naturec! he made due allowance” for the imperfections of human nature was always equtil ' and always firm. After his death his Vety enemies acknowledged that he was the greatest magistrate whom France had known, and that they did not “expect to see such another.” There are extant by him, 1. “Latin Poems,” Their unpretending simplicity is their greatest merit; but they shew such real dignity of character, they breathe so pure a spirit of virtue, and are full of such excellent sentiments of public and private worth, that they will always be read with pleasure. 2. “Speeches delivered in the meeting of the States at Orleans.” As an orator he shines much less than as a poet. 3. “Memoirs, containing Treaties of Peace,” &c. &c. It is said that he had also projected a history of his own time in Latin, but this he did not execute. The best edition of his poems is that of Amsterdam, 1732, 8vo. He left only one child, a daughter, married to Robert Hurault, whose children added the name of l‘Hospital to that of their father; hut the male line of this family also was extinct in 1706. Nevertheless, the memory of the chancellor has received the highest honours within a few years of the present time. In 1777, Louis XVI. erected a statue of white marble to him, and in the same year he was proposed by the French academy for the subject of an eloge. M. Guibert and the abbe Remi contended for the prize. It was adjudged to the latter, who did not, however, print his work; M. Guibert was less prudent, but his eloge gave little satisfaction. The celebrated Condorcet afterwards entered the lists, but with equal want of success. Such fastidiousness of public opinion showed the high veneration entertained for the character of L’ Hospital. In 1807, M. Bernardi published his “Essai sur la Vie, les Ecrits, et les Loix de Michel de L'Hospital,” in one vol. 8vo, a work written with taste and judgment; from these and other documents, Charles Butler, esq. has lately published an elegant “Essay on the Life” of L'Hospital, principally with a view to exhibit him as a friend to toleration.

, in Latin Hototnanus, a learned French civilian, was born in 1524, at Paris, where his family, originally of Breslau in Silesia, had flourished for some time. He made so; rapid a progress in the belles lettres, that at the age of fifteen, he was sent to Orleans to study the civil law, and in three years was received doctor to that faculty. His father, a counsellor in parliament, had already designed him for that employment; and therer fore sent for him home, and placed him at the bar. But Hotman was soon displeased with the chicanery of the court, and applied himself vigorously to the study of the Roman law and polite literature. At the age of twentythree, he was chosen to read public lectures in the schools pf Paris: but, relishing the opinions of Luther, on account of which many persons were put to death in France, and finding that he could not profess them at Paris, he Went to Lyons in 1548. Having now nothing to expect“from his father, who was greatly irritated at the change of his religion, he left France, and retired to Geneva; where he lived some time in Calvin’s house. From hence he went to Lausanne,' where the magistrates of Bern gave him the place of professor of polite literature. He published there some books, which, however, young as he was, were not his first publications; and married a French gentlewoman, who had also retired thither on account of religion. His merit was so universally known, that the magistrates of Strasburg offered him a professorship of civil law; which he accepted, and held till 1561, and during this period, received invitations from the duke of Prussia, the landgrave of Hesse, the dukes of Saxony, and even from queen Elizabeth of England; but did not accept them. He did not refuse, however, to go to the court of the king of Navarre, at the begining of the troubles; and he went twice into Germany, to desire assistance of Ferdinand, in the name of the princes of the blood, and even in the name of the queen-mother. The speech he made at the diet of Francfort is published. Upon his return to Strasburg, he was prevailed upon to teach civil law at Valence; which he did with such success, that he raised the reputation of that university. Three years after, he went to be professor at Bourges, by the invitation of Margaret of France, sister of Henry II. but left that city in about five months, and retired to Orleans to the heads of the party, who made great use of his advice. The peace which was made a month after, did not prevent him from apprehending the return of the storm: upon which account he retired to Sancerre, and there wrote an excellent book,” De Consolatione,“which his son published after his death. He returned afterwards to his professorship at Bourges, where he very narrowly escaped the massacre of 1572: which induced him to leave France, with a full resolution never to return. He then went to Geneva, where he read lectures upon the civil law. Some time after, he went to Basil, and taught civil law, and was so pleased with this situation, that he refused great offers from the prince of Orange and the States-general, who would have draxvn him to Leyden. The plague having obliged him to leave Basil, he retired to Montbeliard, where he lost his wife; and went afterwards to live with her sisters at Geneva. He returned once more to Basil, and there died in 1590, of a dropsy, which had kept him constantly in a state of indisposition for six years before. During this, he revised and digested his works for a new edition, which appeared at Geneva in 1599, in 3 vols. folio, with his life prefixed by Neveletus Doschius> The first two contain treatises upon the civil law; the third, pieces relating to the government of France, and the right of succession; five books of Roman antiquities; commentaries upon Tally’s” Orations and Epistles;“notes upon Caesar’s” Commentaries,“&c. His” Franco-Gallia,“or,” Account of the free state of France,“has been translated into English by lord Molesworth, author of” The Account of Denmark." He published also several other articles without his name; but, being of the controversial kind, they were probably not thought of consequence enough to be revived in the collection of his works.

, a pious and learned translator of the Hebrew Scriptures, and commentator on them, was born at Paris in 168t>. In 1702 he became a priest of the congregation named the Oratory; and being-, by deafness, deprived of the chief comforts of society, addicted himself the more earnestly to books, in which he found his constant consolation. Of a disposition naturally benevolent, with great firmness of soul, goodness of temper, and politeness of manners, he was held in very general estimation, and received honours and rewards from the pope (Bened. XIV.) and from his countrymen, which he had never thought of soliciting. Though his income was’ but small, he dedicated a part of it to found a school near Chantilly; and the purity of his judgment, joined to the strength of his memory, enabled him to carry on his literary labours to a very advanced age. Even when his faculties had declined, and were further injured by the accident of a fall, the very sight of a book, that well-known gonsoler of all his cares, restored him to peace and rationality. He died Oct. 3 I, 1783, at the advanced age of ninetyeight. His works, for which he was no less esteemed in foreign countries than in his own, were chiefly these: 1. An edition of the Hebrew Bible, with a Latin version and notes, published at Paris in 1733, in 4 vols. folio. This is the most valuable and important work of the author, and contains the Hebrew text corrected by the soundest rules of criticism, a Latin version, and useful notes: and prefixed to each book is a very learned preface. Benedict XIV. who justly appreciated the value and difficulty of the work, honoured the author with a medal, and some other marks of approbation; and the clergy of his own country, unsolicited, conferred a pension on him. 2. A Latin translation of the Psalter, from the Hebrew, 1746, 12mo. 3. Another of the Old Testament at large, in 1753, in 8 vols. 8vo. 4. “Racines Hebraiques,” 1732, 8vo, against the points. 5. “Examen du Psautier des Capuchins,” 12mo, the mode of interpretation used in which, he thought too arbitrary. 6. A French translation of an English work by Forbes, entitled “Thoughts on Natural Religion.” 7. Most of the works of Charles Leslie translated, Paris, 1770, 8vo. Father Houhigant is said also to have left several works in manuscript, which, from the excellence of those he published, may be conjectured to be well deserving of the press. Among these are a “Traite des Etudes;” a translation of “Origen against Celsus;” a “Life of Cardinal Berulle;” and a complete translation of the Bible, according to his own corrections. The first of these was to have been published by father Dotteville, and the rest by Lalande, but we do not find that any of them have appeared.

, an eminent engraver, was the son of Arnold Houbraken, a native of Holland, and a painter, but of no very superior merit. He is known, however, to the literary world, as the author of a work in Dutch, entitled “The Great Theatre of the Dutch and Flemish Painters,” in 3 vols. folio, with their portraits. He came over into England, to make drawings of the pictures of Vandyke, which were afterwards engraved by Peter Van Gunst. He died at Amsterdam in the fifty-ninth year of his age, 1719.

His son Jacob was born December 25, 1698. By what master he was instructed in the art of engraving, we are not informed, but he was probably initiated in the art by his father; and Mr. Strutt supposes that he studied the neatest portraits of Edelink very attentively, especially that of Le Brun, which is usually prefixed to the engravings of Girard Audran, from his battles of Alexander. He worked, however, for some time with little profit, and with less celebrity; and he had arrived at the meridian of life before he engaged in that work by which he is best known; a work, which, notwithstanding some well-founded objections, will reflect honour on the several persons engaged in it. It seems to have been a plan of the accurate and industrious George Vertue, who proposed to give sets or classes of eminent men; but his design was adopted by others, and at length taken out of his hands, who, as lord Or ford observes, was best furnished with materials for such a work.

The persons who undertook and brought to conclusion this great national work, were the two Knaptons, booksellers, encouraged by the vast success of Rapin’s History of England. They employed both Vertue and Houbraken, but chiefly the latter, and the publication began in numbers in 1744. The rirst volume was completed in 1747, and the second in 1152. It was accompanied with short lives of the personages, written by Dr. Birch. Lord Orford observes, that some of Houbraken’s beads were carelessly done, especially those of the moderns; and the engraver living in Holland, ignorant of our history, uninquisitive into the authenticity of what was transmitted to him, engraved whatever was sent. His lordship mentions two instances, the heads of Carr earl of Somerset, and secretary Thurlow, which are not only not genuine, but have not the least resemblance to the persons they pretend to represent. Mr. Gilpin, in his Essay on Prints, says, "Houbraken is a genius, and has given us in his collection of English portraits, some pieces of engraving at least equal to any thing of the kind. Such are the heads of Hampden, Schomberg, the earl of Bedford, and the duke of Richmond particularly, aud some others. At the same time, we must own that he has intermixed among his works a great numbe/ of bad prints. In his best, there is a wonderful union of softness and freedom. A more elegant and flowing line no artist ever employed.]' Mr. Strutt estimates his general merits more minutely. Houbraken’s great excellence, says that ingenious writer, consisted in the portrait line of engraving. We admire the softness and delicacy of execution, which appear in his works, joined with good drawing, and a fine taste. If his best performances have ever been surpassed, it is in the masterly determination of the features which we find in the works of Nanteuil, Edelink, and Drevet this gives an animation to the countenance, more easily to be felt than described. From his solicitude to avoid the appearance of an outline, he seems frequently to have neglected the little sharpnesses of light and shadow, which not only appear in nature, but, like the accidental semitones in music, raise a pleasing sensation in the mind, in proportion as the variation is judiciously managed. For want of attention to this essential beauty, many of his celebrated productions have a misty appearance, and do not strike the eye with the force we might expect, when we consider the excellence of the engraving. The Sacrifice of Manoah, from Rembrandt, for the collection of prints from the pictures in the Dresden gallery, is the only attempt he made in historical engraving; but in it he by no means succeeded so well. Of his private life, family, or character, nothing is known. He lived to a good old age, and died at Amsterdam, in 1780.

, an able promoter of exotic botany in England, went first to the West Indies, in the character of a surgeon, and upon his return, after two years’ residence at Leyden, took his degrees in physic under Boerhaave, in 1728 and 1729. At Leyden he instituted a set of experiments on brutes; some of which were made in concert with the celebrated Van Swieten. They were afterwards published in the Philosophical Transactions under the title of “Experimenta de perforatione thoracis, ejusque in respiratione affectibus,” the result of which proved, contrary to the common opinion, that animals could live and breathe for some time, although air was freely admitted into both cavities of the thorax. Soon after his return from Holland, he was in 1732 elected a fellow of the royal society, and went immediately to the West Indies, where he fell a sacrifice to the heat of the climate, July 14, 1733. He had previously sent over a description and figure of the dorsteria contrayerva, which were published in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. XXXVII. This was the first authentic account received of that drug, although known in England from the time of sir Francis Drake, or earlier. He also sent to his friend Mr. Miller, of Chelsea, the seeds of many rare and new plants collected by him in the islands. His ms Catalogue of plants also came into the hands of Mr. Miller, and after his death into the possession of sir Joseph Banks, who, out of respect to the memory of so deserving a man, gratified the botanists with the publication of them, under the title of " Reliquiae Houstonianae, 1781, 4to.

, an English historian, who flourished in the reign of Henry II. was born in Yorkshire, most probably in the town of that name, was of a good family, and lived beyond the year 1204, but the exact periods of his birth and death are not known. He is said to have had some situation in the family of Henry II. and to have been employed by that monarch in confidential services, such as visiting monasteries. He was by profession a lawyer, but, like other lawyers of that time, in the church, and also a professor of theology at Oxford. After the death of Henry, he applied himself diligently to the writing of history, ancl composed annals, which he commenced at the year 731, the period where Bede left off, and continued to the third year of king John, 1202. These annals were first published by Savile among the Historic! Anglici, in 1595, and reprinted at Francfort in 1601, folio, in two books. Leland says of him, “If we consider his diligence, his knowledge of antiquity, and his religious strictness of veracity, he may be considered as having surpassed, not only the rude historians of the preceding ages, but even what could have been expected of himself. If to that fidelity, which is the first quality of a historian, he had joined a little more elegance of Latin style, he might have. stood the first among the authors of that class.” Vossius says that he wrote also a history of the Northumbrian kings, and a life of Thomas a Becket. Edward the Third caused a diligent search to be made for the works of Hoveden when he was endeavouring to ascertain his title to the crown of Scotland. Savile bears the same testimony to his fidelity that we have seen given by Leland.

"It is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels. They have the air of a romance. He made the tour of Europe in the true spirit of chivalry, and with the ideas of an Amadis: proclaiming the unparalleled charms of his mistress, and prepared to defend the cause of her beauty with the weapons of knight-errantry. Nor was this adventurous journey performed without the intervention of an enchanter. The first city in Italy which he proposed to visit was Florence, the capital of Tuscany, and the original seat of the ancestors of his Geraidine. In his way thither, he passed a few days at the emperor’s court ^ where he became acquainted with Cornelius Agrippa, a celebrated adept in natural magic. This visionary philosopher shewed our hero, in a mirror of glass, a living image of Geraidine, reclining on a couch, sick, and reading one of his most tender sonnets by a waxen taper. His imagination, which wanted not the flattering F represeniations and artificial incentives of illusion, was heated anew by this interesting and affecting spectacle. Inflamed wiih every enthusiasm of the most romantic passion, he hastened to Florence and on his arrival, immediately published a defiance against any person who could handle a lance and was in love, whether Christian, Jew, Turk, Saracen, or Canibal, who should presume to dispute the superiority of Geraldine’s beauty. As the lady was pretended to be of Tuscan extraction, the pride of the Flo-, rentines was flattered on this occasion: and the grand duke of Tuscany permitted a general and unmolested ingress into his dominions of the combatants of all countries, till this important trial should be decided. The challenge was accepted, and the earl victorious. The shield which he presented to the duke before the tournament began, is exhibited in Vertue’s valuable plate of the Arundel family, and was actually in the possession of the late duke of Norfolk.

Mr. Warton observes, that “it is not precisely known at what period the earl of Surrey began his travels;” but this is a matter of little consequence in refuting the account usually given of those travels, because all his biographers are agreed that he did not set out before 1536, At this time he had ten years only of life before him, which have been filled up in a very extraordinary manner. First, he travels over a part of Europe, vindicating the beauty of Geraldine in 1540 he is celebrated at the justs at Westminster in 1542 he goes to Scotland with his father’s army in 1543 (probably) he is imprisoned for eating flesh in lent ^in 1544 5, he is commander at Boulogne and lastly, amidst all these romantic adventures, or serious events, he has leisure to marry the daughter of the earl of Oxford, and beget five children, which we may suppose would occupy at least five or six of the above ten years, and those not the last five or six years, for we find him a widower a considerable time before his death. Among other accusations whispered in the ear of his jealous sovereign, one was his continuing unmarried (an expression which usually denotes a considerable length of time) after the period when a second marriage might be decent, in order that he might marry the princess Mary, in the event of the king’s death, and so disturb the succession of Edward. The placing of these events in this series would render the story of his knight-errantry sufficiently improbable, were we left without any information respecting the date of Surrey’s marriage, but that event renders the whole impossible, if we wish to preserve any respect for the consistency of his character. Surrey was actually married before the commencement of his travels in pursuit or in defence of Geraldine’s beauty. His eldest son, Thomas, third duke of Norfolk, was eighteen years old when his grandfather died in 1554. He was consequently born in 1536, and his father, it is surely reasonable to suppose, was married in 1535. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to examine the story of Surrey’s romantic travels any farther, if we had not some collateral authorities which may still show that whatever may be wrong in the present statement, it is certain that there is nothing right in the common accounts, which have been read and copied without any suspicion.

If it be said that Surrey’s age is not exactly known, and therefore allowing 1536, the date of his travels, to be erroneous, it is possible that he might have been enamoured of Geraldine long before this, and it is possible that his travels might have commenced in 1526, or any other period founded on this new conjecture. This, however, is as improbable as all the rest of the story, for it can be decidedly proved that there was no time for Surrey’s gallantries towards Geraldine, except the period which his biographers, however absurdly, have assigned, namely, when he was a married man. The father of lady Elizabeth, the supposed Geraldine, married in 1519, one of the daughters of Thomas Grey, marquis of Dorset, and by her had five children, of whom Elizabeth was the fourth, and therefore probably not born before 1523 or 1524. If Surrey’s courtship, therefore, must be carried farther back, it must be carried to the nursery; for even in 1536, when we are told he was her knight-errant, she could not have been more than eleven or twelve years old. Let us add to this a few particulars respecting Geraldine’s husband. She married Edward lord C'linton. He was born in 1512, was educated in the court, and passed his youth in those magnificent and romantic amusements which distinguished the beginning of Henry VIII.'s reign, but did not appear as a public character until 1544, when he was thirty-two years of age, Geraldine about twenty-four, and Surrey within two years of his death, and most probably a widower. This earl of Lincoln had three wives; the date of his marriage with any of them is not known, nor how long they lived, but Geraldine was the third, the only one by whom he had no children, and who survived his death, which took place in 1584, thirty-eight years after the death of Surrey. Mr. Warton, in his earnest desire to connect her with Surrey, insinuates that she might have been either cruel, or that her “ambition prevailed so far over her gratitude as to tempt her to prefer the solid glories of a more splendid title and ample fortune, to the challenges and the compliments of so magnanimous, so faithful, and so eloquent a lover.” On this it is only necessary to remark, that the lady’s ambition might have been as highly gratified by marrying the accomplished and gallant Surrey, the heir of the duke of Norfolk, as by allying herself to a nobleman of inferior talents and rank. But of his two conjectures, Mr. Warton seems most to adhere to that of cruelty^ for he adds, that “Surrey himgelf outlived his amorous vows, and married the daughter of the earl of Oxford.” This, however, is as little deserving of serious examination, as the ridiculous story of Cornelius Agrippa showing Geraldine in a glass, which Anthony Wood found in Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle,” or probably, as Mr. Park thinks, took it from Nash’s fanciful “Life of Jack Wilton,” published in 1594, where, under the character of his hero, he professes to have travelled to the emperor’s court as page to the earl of Surrey. But it is unfortunate for this story, wheresoever borrowed, that Agrippa was no more a conjurer than any other learned man of his time, and that he died at Grenoble the year before Surrey is said to have set out on his romantic expedition. Drayton has made a similar mistake in giving to Surrey, as one of the companions of his voyage, the great sir Thomas More, who was beheaded in 1535, a year likewise before Surrey set out. Poetical authorities, although not wholly to be rejected, are of all others to be received with the greatest caution, yet it was probably Drayton’s “Heroical Epistle” which led Mr. Warton into so egregious a blunder as that of our poet being present at Flodden-field, in 1513. Dr. Sewell, indeed, in the short memoirs prefixed to his edition of Surrey’s Poems, asserts the same; tut little credit is due to the assertion -of a writer who at the same time fixes Surrey’s birth in 1520, seven years after that memorable battle was fought.

In March 1654 he married the daughter of Mr. George Hughes, minister of Plymouth. Having occasion to take a journey to London, he went as a hearer to the chapel at Whitehall. Cromwell was present, and, struck with his demeanor and person, sent a messenger to inform him that he wished to speak with him when the service was over. In the course of the interview he desired him to preach before him the following Sunday: he requested to be excused, but Cromwell would not be denied, and even undertook to write to his congregation a sufficient apology for his absence from them longer than he intended. This led to the appointment of Mr. Howe to the office of his domestic chaplain, and he accordingly removed with his family to Whitehall. Dr. Calamy tells us, that while he was in this station, he behaved in such a manner that he was never charged, even by those who have been most forward to inveigh against a number of his contemporaries, with improving his interest in those who then had the management of affairs in their hands, either to the enriching himself, or the doing ill offices to others, though of known differing sentiments. He readily embraced every occasion that offered, of serving the interest of religion and learning, and opposing the errors and designs which at that time threatened both. The notion of a particular faith prevailed much at Cromwell’s court; and it was a common opinion among them, that such as were in a special manner favoured of God, when they offered up prayers and supplications to him for his mercies, either for themselves or others, often had such impressions made upon their minds and spirits by a divine hand, as signified to them, not only in the general that their prayers would be heard and answered, but that the particular mercies which were sought for would be certainly bestowed; nay, and sometimes also intimated to them in what way and manner they would be afforded, and pointed out to them future events beforehand, which in reality is the same with inspiration. Mr. Howe told Dr. Calamy, that not a little pains was taken to cultivate and support this notion at Whitehall and that he once heard a sermon there from a person of note, the avowed design of which was to defend it. He said, that he was so fully convinced of the ill tendency of such a principle, that after hearing this sermon, he thought himself bound in conscience, when it came next to his turn to preach before Cromwell, to set himself industriously to oppose it, and to beat down that spiritual pride and confidence, which such fancied impulses and impressions were apt to produce and cherish. He observed, while he was in the pulpit, that Cromwell heard him with great attention, but would sometimes knit his brows, and discover great uneasiness. When the sermon was over, a person of distinction came to him, and asked him, if he knevy. what he had done? and signified it to him as his apprehension, that Cromwell would be so incensed at that dis’A course, that he would find it very difficult ever to make his peace with him, or secure his favour for the future. Mr. Howe replied, that he had but discharged his conscience, and could leave the event with God. He afterwards observed, that Cromwell was cooler in his carriage to him than before; and sometimes he thought he would have spoken to him of the matter, but never did.

, a learned, but somewhat unfortunate divine, was born soon after the restoration, and educated at Jesus college, Cambridge, where he took his degree of B. A. in 1684, and that of M. A. in 1688, after which it is not improbable that he left the university, as he not only scrupled the oaths to the new government, but adhered to the nonjuring party with a degree of firmness, zeal, and rashness, which no considerations of personal loss or suffering could repress. In 1712 he was ordained and instituted into priest’s orders by Dr. Hickes, the celebrated nonjuror, who was titled Suffragan Bishop of Thetford. Before this, in 1708, he published “Synopsis Canonum S. S. Apostolorum, et conciliorum cecumenicorum et provincialium, ab ecclesia Graeca receptorum,” 1710, in folio; “Synopsis canonum ecclesiae Latinae,” folio and in 1715, the third and last volume was announced “as once more finished” by Mr. Howel, the manuscript having been burnt at the fire whicb consumed Mr. Bowyer’s printing-house. Soon after this he printed a pamphlet entitled “The case of Schism in the Church of England truly stated,” which was intended to be dispersed or sold privately, there being no name of any author or printer. Both, however, were soon discovered, andRedmayne, the printer, was sentenced to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for five years, and to find security for his good behaviour for life. The principles laid down in Howel’s pamphlet are these: 1. “That the subjects of England could not transfer their allegiance from king James II.; and thence it is concluded, that all who resisted king James, or have since complied with such as did, are excommunicated by the second canon: 2. That the catholic bishops cannot be deprived by a lay-power only; and thence it is inferred, that all who have joined with them that were put into the places of the deprived bishops, are schismatics.” As such assertions seemed to aim at the vitals of government, both civil and ecclesiastical, it was thought necessary to visit Mr. Howel’s crime with a more severe punishment than had been inflicted on. the printer. Accordingly he was indicted at the Old Bailey Feb. 18, 1717, fora misdemeanour, in publishing “a seditious libel, wherein are contained expressions denying his majesty’s title to the crown of this realm, and asserting the pretender’s right to the same &c. &c.” and being found guilty, he was ordered to pay a fine of 500l. to be imprisoned for three years, to find four securities of 500l. each, himself bound in 1000l. for his good behaviour during life, and to be twice whipped. On hearing this last part of the sentence, he asked, if they would whip a clergyman? and was answered by the court, that they paid no deference to his cloth, because he was a disgrace to it, and had no right to wear it that they did not look upon him as a clergyman in that he had produced no proof of his ordination, but from Dr. Hickes, under the denomination of the bishop of Thetford, which was illegal, and not according to the constitution of this kingdom, which knows no such bishop. And as he behaved in other respects haughtily, on receiving his sentence, he was ordered to be degraded, and stripped of the gown he had no right to wear, which was accordingly done in court by the executioner, A few days after, however, upon his humble petition to his majesty, the corporal punishment was remitted. He died in Newgate, July 19, 1720. The history of this man may now excite unmixed compassion. He was a man of irreproachable character, and of great learning and acquaintance with ecclesiastical history. One of the ablest attacks on popery was of his writing, entitled “The View of the Pontificate, from its supposed beginning, to the end of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1563, in which the corruptions of the Scripture and sacred antiquity, forgeries in the councils, and encroachments of the court of Rome on the church and state, to support their infallibility, supremacy, and other modern doctrines, are set in a true light.” The first edition of this appeared in 1712, and a second was published while the author was in prison, along with a second edition of his well-known “History of the Bible,” 3 vols. 8vo, with above 150 cuts by Sturt; and a second edition of his “Orthodox Communicant.” From the list of nonjurors at the end of Kettlevvell’s Life, we learn that he was at one time master of the school at Epping, and at another time curate of Estwich in Suffolk.

At the age of twenty years and one day, he was delivered by the custom of Normandy from the tuition of his guardians: and soon after took a journey to Paris, not so much from curiosity to see the place, as for the sake of purchasing books, and making himself acquainted with the learned men of the times. He soon became known to Sirmond, Petavius, Vavassor, Cossart, Rapin, Naude, and, in short, to almost all the scholars in France. With Petavius in particular he passed much of his time: he was a great admirer of the splendour of his diction, and the variety of his erudition; but he confesses, that in weighing the arguments which he offered in support of his dogmas, he perceived in them a degree of weakness and ambiguity, which obliged him to suspend his assent, and inclined him towards scepticism. Naturally excelling rather in genius than judgment, and the vigour of his understanding having been rather repressed than improved by an immense variety of reading, Huet found his mind too feeble to master the difficulties of metaphysical and theological studies, and concluded that his want of success in the search after truth was owing, not to any peculiar infelicity in his own case, but to the general imbecility of the human mind.

With this bias towards scepticism Huet entered upon his travels, and Christina of Sweden having invited Bochart to her court, Huet accompanied him, in April 1652. He saw Salmasius at Leyden, and Isaac Vossius at Amsterdam. He often visited the queen, who would have engaged him. in her service; but Bochart not having been very graciously received, through the intrigues of Bourdel, another physician, who was jealous of him, and the queen’s fickle temper being well known, Huet declined^ all offers, and after a stay of three months returned to France. The chief fruit of his journey was a copy of a manuscript of Origen’s “Commentaries upon St. Matthew,” which he transcribed at Stockholm; and the acquaintance he contracted with the learned men in Sweden and Holland, through which he passed. Upon his return to his own country, Caen, he resumed his studies with more vigour than ever, in order to publish his manuscript of Origen . While he was employed in translating this work, he was led to consider the rules to be observed in translations, as well as the different manners of the most celebrated translators. This gave occasion to his first performance, which came out at Paris in 1661, under this title, “De interpretatione libri duo:” and it is written in the form of a dialogue between Casaubon, Fronto Ducaeus, and Thuanus. M. de Segrais tells us, that tf nothing can be added to this treatise, either with respect to strength of critical judgment, variety of learning, or elegance of style;“” which last,“says abbe Olivet,” is so very extraordinary, that it might have done honour to the age of Augustus.“This book was first printed in a thin 4to, but afterwards in 12mo and 8vo^ In 1688, were published at Rouen, in 2 vo!s. folio, his” Origenis Commentaria, &e. cum Latina interpretatione, notis & observationibus;“to which is prefixed, a large preliminary discourse, in which is collected all that antiquity relates of Origen. The interval of sixteen years, between his return from Sweden and the publication of this work, was spent entirely in study, excepting a month or two every year, when he went to Paris; during which time he gave the public a specimen of his skill in polite literature, in an elegant collection of poems, entitled” Carmina Latina & Grajca;“which were published at Utrecht in 1664, and afterwards enlarged in several successive editions. While he was employed upon his” Commentaries of Origen,“he had the misfortune to quarrel with his friend and master Bochart; who desiring one day a sight qf his manuscript for the sake of consulting some passages about the Encbarist, which had been greatly controverted between Papists and Protestants, discovered an hiatus or defect, which seemed to determine the sense in favour of the Papists, and reproached Huet with being the contriver of it. Huet at first thought that it was a defect in the original ms. but upon consulting another very antient ms. in the king’s libra' Paris, he found that he had omitted some words in the harry of transcribing, as he says, and that the mistake was his own. Bochart, still supposing that this was a kind of pious fraud in Huet, to support the doctrine of the church of Rome in regard to the Eucharist, warned the Protestants against Hoet’s edition of Origen’s” Commentaries," and dissolved the friendship which had so long subsisted between Huet and himself.

, or de St. Marie, a celebrated monk of the abbey of Fleury towards the end of the 11th century, was called Hugh de St. Marie from the name of a village which belonged to his father. He is little known but by his works, which are two books: “De la Puissance Royale, et de la Dignite” Sacerdotale,“dedicated to Henry king of England, in which he establishes with great solidity the rights and bounds of the priestly and royal powers, in opposition to the prejudices which prevailed at that time. This work may be found in torn. IV. of the” Miscellanea“of Beluze. % He wrote also” A Chronicle," or History, from the beginning of the world to 840, and a small Chronicle from 996 to 1109, Minister, 163S, 4to, valuable and scarce. It may also be found in Troher’s collection.

, born in 1065, was a monk of St. Vannes at Verdun, and afterwards abbot of Flavigny in the 12th century, but was dispossessed of that dignity by the bishop of Autun, who caused another abbot to be elected. Hugh, however, supplanted St. Laurentius, abbot of Vannes, who was persecuted by the bishop of Verdun for his attachment to the pope, and kept his place till 1115, after which time it is not known what became of him. He wrote the “Chronicle of Verdun,” which is esteemed, and may be found in P. Labbe’s * Bibl. Manuscript."

, of a different family from the former, was born in 1682, and became a fellow of Jesus college, Cambridge. He was called by bishop Atterbury “a learned hand,” and is known to the republic of letters as editor of St Chrysostom’s treatise “On the Priesthood.” Two letters of his to Mr. Bonwicke are printed in “The Gentleman’s Magazine,” in one of which he says, “I have at last been prevailed on to undertake an edition of St. Chrysostom’s tsefi itfaxrvws, and I would beg the favour of you to send me your octavo edition. I want a small volume to lay by me; and the Latin version may be of some service to me, if I cancel the interpretation of Fronto Ducaeus.” A second edition of this treatise was printed at Cambridge in Greek and Latin, with notes, and a preliminary dissertation against the pretended “Rights of the Church,” &c. in 1712. A good English translation of St. Chrysostom “On the Priesthood,” a posthumous work by the Rev. John Bunce, M. A. was published by his son (vicar of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury) in 1760. Mr. Hughes died Nov. 18, 1710, and was buried in the church of St. Nicholas, Deptford, where there is a long Latin inscription to his memory.

, a learned Jesuit, was born at Brussels in 1588; and died of the plague at Rhinberg in 1639. He published his first work in 1617, which was “De prima scribendi origine, et universae rei literarise antiquitate,” Antwerp, 8vo. This book was republished by Trotzius in 1738, with many notes. 2. “Obsidio Bredana, sub Ambrosio Spinola,” Antwerp, 1629, folio. 3. “Militia equestris, antiqua et nova,” Antwerp, 1630, folio. 4. His “Pia JDesideria,” the work by which he is best known, was first published in 1632, 8vo, and reprinted in 32mo, with all the clearness of Elzevir, and adorned with rather fanciful engravings. These “Pia Desideria” are in Latin, and consist of three books, the subjects of which are thus arranged. B. 1. “Gemitus Animae penitentis.” 2. “Vota animae sanctas.” 3. “Suspiria animae amantis.” They consist of long paraphrases in elegiac verse, on various passages of scripture. His versification is usually good, but he wants simplicity and sublimity; yet he is sometimes p oetical, though his muse is not like that of David.

, a voluminous author in Latin and French, whose works, from their subjects, are little known here, was a canon of the Premonstratensian order, a doctor of divinity, abbe of Etival, and titular bishop of Ptolemais. He died at an advanced age, in 1735. His works are, 1. “Annales Praemonstratensium,” a history of his own order, and a very laborious work, in two volumes, folio; illustrated with plans of the monasteries, and other curious particulars; but accused of some remarkable errors. 2. “Vie de St. Norbert Fondateur des Premontres,” 1704, 4to. 3. “Sacrae antiquitatis monumenta historica, dogmatica, diplomatica,” 1725, 2 vols. folio. 4. “Trait historique et critique de la Maison de Lorraine,” 1711, 3vo. This being a work of some boldness, not only the name of the author, but that of the place where it was printed, was concealed: the former being professedly Balcicourt, the latter Berlin, instead of Nanci. Yet the author was traced out, and fell under the censure of the parliament, in 1712. In 1713, he published another work, 5. entitled “Reflexions sur les deux Ouvrages concernant la Maison de Lorraine,” where he defends his former publication.

It is, indeed, as an historian, or perhaps occasionally as a political writer, that Hume will probahly be best known to posterity; and it is in these capacities that he can be read with the greatest pleasure and advantage by the friends of sound morals and religion. Yet even as an historian, he has many faults; he does not scruple to disguise facts from party motives, and he never loses an opportunity of throwing out his cool sceptical sneer at Christianity, under the names of fanaticism and superstition. “When Mr. Hume rears the standard of infidelity,” says Gilpin, “he acts openly and honestly; but when he scatters his careless insinuations, as he traverses the paths of history, we characterize him as a dark, insidious enemy.”

The profits of his two first courses were considerable, but by contributing to the wants of different friends, he found himself, at the return of the next season, obliged to defer his lectures for a fortnight, merely because he had not money to defray the necessary expeiice of advertisements. This circumstance taught him to be more reserved in this respect. In 1747 he was admitted a member of the corporation of surgeons, and in the spring of the following year, soon after the close of his lectures, he set out in company with his pupil, Mr. James Douglas, on a tour through Holland to Paris. His lectures suffered no interruption by this journey, as he returned to England soon enough to prepare for his winter course, which began about the usual time. At first he practised both surgery and midwifery, but the former he always disliked; and, being elected one of the surgeon-men-midwives first to the Middlesex, and soon afterwards to the British lying-in hospital, and recommended by several of the most eminent surgeons of that time, his line was thus determined. Over his countryman, Dr. Smellie, notwithstanding his great experience, and the reputation he had justly acquired, he had a great advantage in person and address. The most lucrative part of the practice of midwifery was at that time in the hands of sir Richard Manningham and Dr. Sandys. The former of these died, and the latter retired into the country a few years after Mr. Hunter began to be known in midwifery. Although by these incidents he was established in the practice of midwifery, it is well known that in proportion as his reputation increased, his opinion was eagerly sought in all cases where any light concerning the seat or nature of any disease, could be expected from an intimate knowledge of anatomy. In 1750 he obtained the degree of M. D. from the university of Glasgow, and began to practise as a physician. About this time he quitted the family of Mrs. Douglas, and went to reside in Jermyn-skreet. In the summer of 1751 he revisited his native country, for which he always retained a cordial affection. His mother was still living at Long Calderwood, which was now become his property by the death of his brother James. Dr. Cullen, for whom he always entertained asincere regard, was then established at Glasgow. During this visit, he shewed his attachment to his little paternal inheritance, by giving many instructions for repairing and improving it, and for purchasing any adjoining lands that might be offered for sale. As he and Dr. Cullen were riding one day in a low part of the country, the latter pointing out to him Long Calderwood at a considerable distance, remarked how conspicuous it appeared. “Well,” said he, with some degree of energy, “if I live, I shall make it still more conspicuous.” After his journey to Scotland, to which he devoted only a few weeks, he was never absent from London, unless his professional engagements, as sometimes happened, required his attendance at a distance from the capital.

In January 1781, he was unanimously elected to succeed the late Dr. John Fothergill as president of the society of physicians of London. “He was one of those,” says Dr. Simmons, “to whom we are indebted for its establishment, and our grateful acknowledgments are due to him for his zealous endeavours to promote the liberal views of this institution, by rendering it a source of mutual improvement, and thus making it ultimately useful to the public.” As his name and talents were known and respected in every part of Europe, so the honours conferred on him were not limited to his own country. In 1780 the royal medical society at Paris elected him one of their foreign associates; and in 1782 he received a similar mark of distinction from the royal academy of sciences in that city. We come now to the most splendid of Dr. Hunter’s medical publications, “The Anatomy of the Human Gravid Uterus.” The appearance of this work, which had been begun so early as 1751 (at which time ten of the thirty-four plates it contains were completed), was retarded till 1775, only by the author’s desire of sending it into the world with fewer imperfections. This great work is dedicated to the king. In his preface to it we find the author very candidly acknowledging, that in most of the dissections he had been assisted by his brother, Mr. John Hunter. This anatomical description of the gravid uterus, was not the only work which Dr. Hunter had in contemplation to give to the public. He had long been employed in collecting and arranging materials for a history of the various concretions that are formed in the human body. He seems to have advanced no further in the execution of this design, than to have nearly completed that part of it which relates to urinary and biliary concretions. Among Dr. Hunter’s papers have likewise been found two introductory lectures, which are written out so fairly, and with such accuracy, that he probably intended no further correction of them, before they should be given to the world. In these lectures Dr. Hunter traces the history of anatomy from the earliest to the present times, along with the general progress of science and the arts. He considers the great utility of anatomy in the practice of physic and surgery; givt-s the ancient divisions of the different substances composing the human body, which for a long time prevailed in anatomy; points out the most advantageous mode of cultivating this branch of natural knowledge; and concludes with explaining the particular plan of his own lectures. Besides these Mss. he has also left behind him a considerable number of cases of dissection. The same year in which the tables of the gravid uterus made their appearance, Dr. Hunter communicated to the royal society “An essay on the Origin of the Venereal Disease.” After this paper had been read to the royal society, Dr. Hunter, in a conversation with the late Dr. Musgrave, was convinced that the testimony on which he placed his chief dependence was of less weight than he had at first imagined; he therefore very properly laid aside his intention of giving his essay to the public.

The management of anatomical preparations was at this time a new art, and very little known; every preparation, therefore, that was skilfully made, became an object of admiration; many were wanting for the use of the lectures, and Dr. Hunter having himself an enthusiasm for the art, his brother had every advantage in the prosecution of that pursuit towards which his own disposition pointed so strongly; and of which he left so noble a monument in his Museum of Comparative Anatomy. Mr. Hunter pursued the stud^bf anatomy with an ardour and perseverance of which few examples can be found. By this clo^e application for ten years, he made himself master of all that was already known, and struck out some additions to that knowledge. He traced the ramifications of the olfactory nerves upon the membranes of the nose, and discovered the course of some of the branches of the fifth pair of nerves. In the gravid uterus, he traced the arteries of the uterus to their termination in the placenta. He also discovered the existence of the lymphatic vessels in birds. In comparative anatomy, which he cultivated with indefatigable industry, his grand object was, by examining various organizations formed for similar functions, under different circumstances, to trace out the general principles of animal life. With this object in view, the commonest animals were often of considerable importance to him; but he also took every opportunity of purchasing those that were rare, or encouraged their owners to sell the bodies to him when they happened to die.

In 1780 he was entered a commoner of St. Mary-hall, Oxford; and at the election in 1782, was chosen a demy of St. Mary Magdalen college. Here his studies, which were close and uninterrupted, were encouraged, and his amiable character highly respected, by Dr. Home, president of Magdalen, and his successor Dr. Routh, by Dr. Sheppard, Dr. Rathbone, and others. About 1784 he went to Stanmer in Sussex, where he resided for some considerable time as tutor to the late earl of Chichester’s youngest son, the hon. George Pelham, now bishop of Exeter. In May 1785, having taken his bachelor’s degree, he retired to the curacy of Burwash in Sussex, which he held for six years, but in the interim, in 1786, was elected probationer fellow of Magdalen, and the following year took his master’s degree. Finding himself now sufficiently enabled to assist his mother in the support of her family, he hired a small house, and took three of his sisters to reside with him. In 1788, he first appeared before the public as a poet, in “The Village Curate,” the reception of which far exceeded his expectations, a second edition being called for the following year. This poem, although perhaps not highly finished, contained so many passages of genuine poetry, and evinced so much elegance, taste, and sense, as to pass through the ordeal of criticism with great applause, and to be considered as the earnest of future and superior excellence. Such encouragement induced the author to publish in 1790, his “Adriano, or the first of June,” which was followed in a short time by his “Panthea,” “Elmer and Ophelia,” and the “Orphan Twins,” all which were allowed to confirm the expectations of the public, and place the author in an enviable rank among living poets. These were followed by two publications, connected with his profession; “A short critical Disquisition ou the true Meaning of the word tO*OiJin, found in Gen. i. 21, 1790,” and “Select critical Remarks upon the English version of the first ten chapters of Genesis.” In 1791, through the interest of the earl of Chichester, he was appointed to the living of Bishopstone; and about the same time wrote his tragedy of “Sir Thomas More,” a poem of considerable merit, but not intended for the stage. In 1792, he was deprived by death of his favourite sister Catherine, whose elegant mind he frequently pourtrayed in his works, under the different appellations of Margaret and Isabel. On this affliction he quitted his curacy, and returned with his two sisters to Bishopstone. Here the trouble of his mind was considerably alleviated by an affectionate invitation from his much- esteemed friend Mr. Hayley to visit Eartham, where he had the pleasing satisfaction of becoming personally known to Cowper, the celebrated poet, with whom he had maintained a confidential correspondence for some years.

“My attention was first turned to this great character by a conversation I had, very early in life, with Mr. Stuart, better known by the name of Athenian Stuart, an epithet richly merited by the essential advantages Mr. Stuart had rendered the public, by his establishing just ideas, and a true taste for the Grecian arts. The discourses of this truly intelligent and very candid artist, and what I saw of the works of Hussey, had altogether made such an impression on my mind, as may be conceived, hut cannot be expressed. With fervour I went abroad, eager to retrace all Hussey’s steps, through the Greeks, through Rafaelle, through dissected nature, and to add to what he had been cruelly torn away from, by a laborious, intense study and investigation of the Venetian school. In the hours of relaxation, I naturally endeavoured to recommend myself to the acquaintance of such of Mr. Hussey’s intimates as were still living: they always spoke of him with delight. And from the whole of what I could learn abroad, added to the information I received from my very amiable and venerable friend Mr. Moser since my return, Mr. Hussey must have been one of the most amiable, friendly, and companionable men, and the farthest removed from all spirit of strife and contention.”

He then returned to Ireland; and, entering into the ministry, was just about to be settled in a small congregation of dissenters in the north of Ireland, when some gentlemen about Dublin, who knew his great abilities and virtues, invited him to set up a private academy in that city, with which he complied, and met with much success. He had been fixed but a short time in Dublin, when his singular merits and accomplishments made him generally known; and his acquaintance was sought by men of all ranks, who had any taste for literature, or any regard for learned men. Lord Molesworth is said to have taken great pleasure in his conversation, and to have assisted him with his criticisms and observations upon his “Enquiry intp the Ideas of Beauty and Virtue,” before it came abroad. He received the same favour from Dr. Synge, bishop of Elphin, with whom he also lived in great friendship. The first edition of this performance came abroad without the author’s name, but the merit of it would npt suffer him to be Long concealed. Such was the reputation of the work, and the ideas it had raised of the author, that lord Granville, who was then lord-lieutenant of Ireland, sent his private secretary to inquire at the bookseller’s for the author; and when he could not learn his name, he left a letter to be cpnveyed to him: in consequence of which Mr. Hutcheson soon became acquainted with his excellency, and was treated by him, all the time he continued in his government, with distinguished marks of familiarity and esteem.

, a Silesian of the sixteenth century, was the founder of the sect called the Bohemian or Moravian brethren, a sect of Anabaptists. Hutten purchased a territory of some extent in Moravia, and there established his society. They are considered as descended from the better sort of Hussites, and were distinguished by several religious institutions of a singular nature, but well adapted to guard their community against the reigning vices of the times. When they heard of Luther’s attempts to reform the church, they sent a deputation to him, and he, examining their tenets, though he could not in every particular approve, looked upon them as worthy of toleration and indulgence. Hutten brought persecution upon himself and his brethren by violent declamations against the magistrates, and the attempt to introduce a perfect equality among men. It has been said that he was burnt as a heretic at Inspruck, but this is by no means certain. By degrees these sectaries, banished from their own country, entered into communion with the Swiss church; though, for some time, with separate institutions. But in the synods held at Astrog in 162O and 1627, all dissensions were removed, and the two congregations were formed into one, under the title of the Church of the United Brethren. The sect of Herrenhutters or Moravians, formed by count JZinzendorff in the beginning of the present century, pretend to be descended from these brethren, ad take the same title of unitas Jratrum but Mosheina observes that “they may with more propriety be said to imitate the example of that famous community, than to descend from, those who composed it, since it is well known that there are very few Bohemians and Moravians in the fraternity of the Herrenhutters; and it is extremely doubtful whether vcn this smaJl number are to be considered as the posterity of the ancient Bohemian brethren, who distinguished themselves so early by their zeal for the reformation,”

Dr. Hutton’s first publication was given to the world in 1777, entitled “Considerations on the nature, quality, and distinctions of Coal and Culm.” It proves that culm is the small or refuse of the infusible or stone-coal, but very different in its properties from the small of the fusible coal. A sketch of his great work, his “Theory of the Earth,” the formation of which had been the object of many years of previous study, was communicated to the royal society of Edinburgh soon after its original institution. Another paper, a “Theory of Kain,” appeared also in the first volume of the Edinburgh Transactions. This theory, as is well known, met with a most vigorous and determined opposition from M. de Luc, and became a subject of controversy, which was conducted with perhaps too much warmth. After the period of these two publications, Dr. Hutton made severalexcursions into different parts of Scotland, wkh a view of comparing certain results of his theory with actual observation; and in these he seems to have been very successful. In 1792 he published “Dissertations on different subjects in Natural Philosophy,” in which his theory for explaining the phenomena of the material world, seems to coincide very closely with that of Boscovich, though there is no reason to suppose that the former was suggested by the latter. But Dr. Hutton did not confine himself merely to physical speculations; he directed his attention also to the study of metaphysics, the result of which was the publication of a work entitled “An Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge, and of the Progress of Reason from Sense to Science and Philosophy,” 3 vols. 4to. The metaphysical opinions advanced in this work coincide for the most part with those of Dr. Berkeley, and abound in sceptical boldness and philosophical infidelity. In 1794 appeared his “Dissertation upon the Philosophy of Light, Heat, and Fire,” 8vo, which may be considered as a kind of supplement to the two preceding works. In 1796 his “Theory of the Earth” was republished in 2 vols. 8vo, from the Edinburgh Philosophical Transactions, with large additions, and a new mineralogical system. Many of his opinions here have been ably combated by Kirwan and others.

In the parliament which began at Westminster April 10, 1640, he served as burgess for Wotton-Basset in Wiltshire; and distinguished himself upon the following occasion. His majesty having acquainted the house of commons, that he would release the ship-money, if they would grant him twelve subsidies, to be paid in three years, great debates arose in the house that day and the next; when Hampden, seeing the matter ripe for the question, desired it might be put, “whether the house should comply with the proposition made by the king, as it was contained in the message?” Serjeant Glanvile, the speaker, for the house was then in a committee, endeavoured in a pathetic speech to persuade them to comply with the king, and so reconcile him to parliaments for ever. No speech ever united the inclination of a popular council more to th speaker than this did and if the question had been immediately put, it was believed that few would have opposed it. But, after a short silence, the other side recovering new courage, called again with some earnestness, thai Hampden’s question should be put; which being like to meet with a concurrence, Hyde, who was desirous to preserve a due medium, after expressing his dislike of Hampden’s question, proposed, that “to the end every man might freely give his yea or no, the question might be put only upon giving the king a supply; and if this was carried, another might be put upon the manner and proportion: if not, it would have the same effect with the other proposed by Mr. Hampden.” This, after it had been some time opposed and diverted by other propositions, which were answered by Hyde, would, as it is generally believed, have been carried in the affirmative, though positively opposed by Herbert the solicitor-general, if sir Henry Vane the secretary had not assured them as from his majesty, that if they should pass a vote for a supply, and not in the proportion proposed in his -majesty’s message, it would not be accepted by him, and therefore desired that the question might be laid aside. This being again urged by the solicitor-general, and it being near five in the afternoon, a very late hour in those days, it was readily consented to, that the house should adjourn till the reXt morning, at which time they were suddenly dissolvea. And within an hour after Hyde met St. John, who was seldom known to smile, but then had a most cheerful aspect; and observing Hyde melancholy, asked him, “what troubled him r” who answered, “The same he believed that troubled most good men, that, in a time of so much confusion, so wise a parliament should be so imprudently dissolved.” St. John replied somewhat warmly, “that all was well: that things must grow worse, before they would grow better; and that that parliament would never have done what was requisite.”

Besides the post of lord chancellor, in which he was continued, he was chosen chancellor of the university of Oxford in Oct. 1660 and, in November following, created a peer by the title of baron Hyde of Hindon in Wiltshire; to which were added, in April 1661, the titles of viscount Cornbury in Oxfordshire, and earl of Clarendon in Wiltshire. These honours, great as they were, were, however, by no means beyond his merit. He had, upon the Restoration, shewn great prudence, justice, and moderation, in settling the just boundaries between the prerogative of the crown and the liberties of the people. He had reduced much confusion into order, and adjusted many clashing interests, where property was concerned. He had endeavoured to make things easy to the Presbyterians and malcontents by the act of indemnity, and to satisfy the Royalists by the act of uniformity. But it is not possible to stand many years in a situation so much distinguished, without becoming the object of envy; which created him such enemies as both wished and attempted his ruin, and at last effected it. Doubtless nothing more contributed to inflame this passion against him, than the circumstance of his eldest daughter being married to the duke of York, which became known in a few months after the king’s return. She had been one of the maids of honour to the princess royal Henrietta, some time during the exile, when the duke fell in love with her; and being disappointed by the defeat of sir George Booth, in a design he had formed of coming with some forces to England in 1659, he went to Breda, where his sister then resided. Passing some weeks there, he took this opportunity, as Burnet tells us, of soliciting miss Hyde to indulge his desires without marriage; but she managed the matter with such address, that in the conclusion he married her, Nov. 4 that year, with all possible secrecy, and unknown to her father. After their arrival in England, being pregnant, she called upon the duke to own his marriage; and though he endeavoured to divert her from this object, both by great promises and great threatenings, yet she had the spirit and wisdom to tell him, “She would have it known that she was his wife, let him use her afterwards as he pleased.” The king ordered some bishops and judges to peruse the proofs of her marriage; and they reporting that it had been solemnized according to the doctrine of gospel and the law of England, he told his brother, that he must live with her whom he had made his wife, and at the same time generously preserved the honour of an excellent servant, who had not been privy to it; assuring him, that “this accident should not lessen the esteem and favour he had for him.”

The first open attack upon lord Clarendon was made by the earl of Bristol; who, in 1663, exhibited against him a charge of high treason to the house of lords. There had been a long course of friendship, both in prosperity and adversity, between the chancellor and this earl: but they had gradually fallen into different measures in religion and politics. In this state of things, the chancellor refusing what lord Bristol considered as a small favour (which was said to be the passing a patent in favour of a court lady), the latter took so much offence, that he resolved upon revenge. The substance of the whole accusation was as follows: “That the chancellor, being in place of highest trust and confidence with his majesty, and having arrogated a supreme direction in all thingjs, had, with a traiteroas intent to draw contempt upon his majesty’s person, and to alienate the affections of his subjects, abused the said trust in manner following. 1. He had endeavoured to alienate the hearts of his majesty’s subjects, by artfully insinuating to his creatures and dependent);, that his majesty was inclined to popery, and designed to alter the established religion. 2. He had said to several persons of his majesty’s privy council, that his majesty was dangerously corrupted in his religion, and inclined to popery: that persons of that religion had such access and such credit with him, that, unless there were a careful eye had upon it, the protestant religion would be overthrown in this kingdom. 3. Upon his majesty’s admitting sir Henry Bennet to be secretary of state in the place of sir Edward Nicholas, he said, that his majesty had given 10,000^. to remove a most zealous Protestant, that he might bring into that place a concealed Papist. 4. In pursuance of the same traiterous design, several friends and dependents of his have said aloud, that ‘ were it not for my lord chancellor’s standing in the gap, Popery would be introduced into this kingdom.’ 5. That he kad persuaded the king, contrary to his opinion, to allow his name to be used to the pope and several cardinals, in the solicitation of a cardinal” cap for the lord Aubigny, great almoner to the queen: in order to effect which, he had employed Mr. Richard Bealing, a known Papist, and had likewise applied himself to several popish priests and Jesuits to the same purpose, promising great favour to the Papists here, in case it should be effected. 6. That he had likewise promised to several Papists, that he would do his endeavour, and said, * he hoped to compass taking away all penal laws against them; to the end they might presume and grow vain upon his patronage; and, by their publishing their hopes of toleration, increase the scandal designed by him to be raised against his majesty throughout the kingdom. 7. That, being intrusted with the treaty between his majesty and his royal consort the queen, he concluded it upon articles scandalous and dangerous to the Protestant religion. Moreover, he brought the king and queen together without any settled agreement about the performance of the marriage rites; whereby, the queen refusing to be married by a Protestant priest, in case of her being with child, either the succession should be made uncertain for want of the due rites of matrimony, or else his majesty be exposed to a suspicion of having been married in his own dominions by a Romish priest. 8. That, having endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects upon the score of religion, he endeavoured to make use of all his scandals and jealousies, to raise to himself a popular applause of being the zealous upholder of the Protestant religion, &c. 9. That he further endeavoured to alienate the hearts of the king’s subjects, by venting in his own discourse, and those of his emissaries, opprobrious scandals against his majesty’s person and course of life; such as are not fit to be mentioned, unless necessity shall require it. 10. That he endeavoured to alienate the affections of the duke of York from his majesty, by suggesting to him, that ‘ his majesty intended to legitimate the duke of Monmouth.’ 11. That he had persuaded the king, against thie advice of the lord general, to withdraw the English garrisons out of Scotland, and demolish all the forts built there, at so vast a charge to this kingdom; and all without expecting the advice of the parliament of England. 12. That he endeavoured to alienate his majesty’s affections and esteem from the present parliament, by telling him, ‘ that there never was so weak and inconsiderable a house of lords, nor never so weak and heady a house of commons’ and particularly that ’ it was better to sell Dunkirk than be at their mercy for want of money.' 13. That, contrary to a known law made last session, by which money was given and applied for maintaining Dunkirk, he advised and effected the sale of the same to the French king. 14. That he had, contrary to law, enriched himself and his treasures by the sale of offices. 15. That he had converted to his own use vast sums of public money, raised in Ireland by way of subsidy, private and public benevolences, and otherwise given and intended to defray the charge of the government in that kingdom. 16. That, having arrogated to himself a supreme direction of all his majesty’s affairs, he had prevailed to have his majesty’s customs farmed at a lower rate than others offered; and that by persons with some of whom he went a share, and other parts of money resulting from his majesty’s revenue."

It is as a historian that lord Clarendon will be longest remembered, and if compared with those who preceded, or were contemporaries with him, his superiority must in every respect be acknowledged. He knew more and has told more of the histories of his times than any other man, and that with an impartiality which gives us an equally favourable opinion of his head as of his heart. It may be every where seen that he cannot disguise the truth even when it makes against the cause he supports; and where there is any appearance of partiality, it may easily be traced to a warmth of loyalty and friendship, for which every honourable man will find an apology in his own breast. The republicans of his time had much to allege against him, and those of more modern times will never forgive a loyalty which they cannot comprehend, a steadiness of principle which ill accords with their versatile schemes of innovation, and a species of patriotism which would preserve the balance between liberty and licentiousness. “Like justice itself,” says lord Orford, in a character of our author, by no means very favourable, “he held the balance between the necessary power of the supreme magistrate and the interests of the people. This never-dying obligation his contemporaries were taught to overlook and to clamour against, till they removed the only man, who, if he could, would have corrected his master’s evil government.” Such was Clarendon’s n^-erit in the corrupt court of Charles II. when, “if he had sought nothing but power, his power |iad never ceased.” The fact was, that Clarendon, in his History, not then published, but certainly written, had traced the misfortunes of the preceding reign to their true source, and was the only man at court who wished to profit by his experience. As to his style, as a historian, it has chiefly been objected that his periods are long; but it seems scarcely worth while to enlarge on the style of a writer who lived at a time when style was so little cultivated, so imperfectly known. His excellencies are his comprehensive knowledge of mankind, which enabled htm to draw those exact portraits of the leading characters of:his time, which have scarcely been equalled, and probably can never be excelled. No man brings us nearer to the personages with whom we wish to be familiar. He is, says Granger, in this particular as unrivalled among the moderns as Tacitus among the ancients. He paints himself in drawing the portraits of others; and we every where see the clear and exact comprehension, the uncommon learning, the dignity and equity of the lord chancellor, in his character as a writer.

, Lord Hyde and Cornbury, eldest son to Henry earl of Clarendon and Rochester, was the author of a few pamphlets published without his name: of some tragedies still in manuscript, and of a comedy called “The Mistakes or, The Happy Resentment,” printed in 1758 at Strawberry Hill, with a preface by lord Orford. This was a juvenile performance, of no great merit, never acted, and printed for the benefit of an actress. His lordship was killed by a fall from his horse, in France, May 2, 1753. Pope has neatly complimented the virtuous taste of lord Cornbury, by making it a criterion of merit to “disdain whatever Cornbury disdained.” “He was,” says lord Orford, “upright, calm, steady his virtues were of the gentlest complexion, yet of the firmest texture vice could not bend him, nor party warp him even his own talents could not mislead him. Though a master of eloquence, he preferred justice and the love of his country to all the applause which the violence of the times in which, he lived was so prodigal of bestowing on orators who distinguish themselves in any faction; but the tinsel of popularity and the intrinsic of corruption were equally his contempt. He spoke, nor wrote, nor acted, for fame.” He wrote the paper dated Feb. 12, 1737, in the periodical paper entitled “Common Sense,” and “A Letter to the vice-chancellor of Oxford.” 1751. His lordship had represented the university in parliament, and in this letter announces his resignation, in consequence of being called up to his father’s barony in the house of peers. This was followed by a “Letter to his Lordship,” from several members of the university, acknowledging his merits. He was succeeded by sir Roger Newdigate. But of all his compositions, that which did his lordship most credit, was his “Letter to David Mallet, on the intended publication of lord Bolingbroke’s Manuscripts,” which was printed in Dr. Havvkes worth’s edition of Swift’s works; and it is a monument, says that editor, that will do more honour to the writer’s memory than all that mere wit or valour has achieved since the word began. Mallet, it is well known, did not profit as he ought to have done by this advice. Pope’s allusion of “disdain,” &c. is said, by Ruffhead, to have arisen from the following circumstance: when lord Cornbury returned from his travels, the earl of Essex, his brother-in-law, told him he had got a handsome pension for him; to which lord Cornbury answered with a composed dignity, “How could you tell, my lord, that I was to be sold; or, at least, how came you to know my price so exactly?”

, a very learned writer, was son of Mr. Ralph Hyde, minister of Billingsley near Bridgenorth in Shropshire, and born there June 2i), 1636. Having a strong inclination for the Oriental languages from his youth, he studied them first under his father; and afterwards, in 1652, being admitted of King’s college, Cambridge, he became acquainted with Mr. Abraham Wheelock, an admirable linguist, who encouraged him to prosecute his study of them in that place. By him, Hyde, when he had been at Cambridge little more than a year, was sent to London, and recommended to Walton, afterwards bishop of Chester, as a person very capable of assisting him in the Polyglott Bible, in which work he was then engaged. Hyde rendered him great services; for, besides his attendance in the correction of it, he transcribed the Pentateuch out of the Hebrew characters, in which it was first printed at Constantinople, into the proper Persian characters; which by archbishop Usher was then judged impossible to have been done by a native Persian, because one Hebrew letter frequently answered to several Persian letters, which were difficult to be known. He translated it likewise into Latin. What he did farther in the Polyglott, is specified by the editor in these words: “Nee praetereundus est D. Thomas Hyde, summae spei juvenis, cjui in linguis Orientalibus supra aetatem magnos progressuB fecit, quorum specimina dedit turn in Arabibus, Syriacis, Persicis, &c. corrigendis, turn in Pentateucho Persico characteribus Persicis describendo, quia antea soils Hebraicis extitit, ejusque versionem Latinam concinnando.”

About this time Hyde became known to Mr. Boyle, to whom he was very useful in communicating from Oriental writers several particulars relating to chemistry, physic, and natural history. In Oct. 1666, he was collated to a prebend in the church of Salisbury. In 1674, he published “A Catalogue of the books in the Bodleian library.” In 1678, he was made archdeacon of Gloucester; and, in 1682, took the degree of doctor in divinity. Dec. 1691, he was elected Arabic professor, on the death of Dr. Edward Pocock; and the same year published the “Itinera Mundi” of Abraham Peritsol, the son of Mordecai Peritsol, a very learned Jew. This was done to supply in some measure the Arabic geography of Abulfeda, which, at the request of Dr. Fell, he had undertaken to publish with a Latin translation: but the death of his patron putting an end to that work, he sent this smaller performance abroad, and dedicated it to the earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, in hopes that it might excite a stronger curiosity amongst the learned to search into this branch of literature. Dr. Altham, regius-professor of Hebrew, and canon of Christ-church, being, on some dispute about the oaths, removed from both preferments, Hyde became possessed of both, as they are always annexed, in July 1697.

Three years after he had ready for the press, as Wood tells us, an excellent work, on a subject very little known even to the learned themselves, “The Religion of the Ancient Persians,” a work of profound and various erudition, abounding with many new lights on the most curious and interesting subjects, filled with authentic testimonies, which none but himself could bring to public view, and with many ingenious conjectures concerning the theology, history, -and learning of the Eastern nations. This work, which was printed at Oxford in 1700, in 4to, containing 550 pages, and is now become exceedingly scarce, and sells at a very high price, was entitled “Historia Religionis Vetejum Persarum, eorumque Magorum.” It was dedicated to lord Somers. Foreign writers, as well as those of our own country, have spoken of it with high admiration and applause; and, if Hyde had left us no other monument of his studies, this alone had been sufficient to establish and preserve his reputation, as long as any taste for Oriental learning shall remain.

Jackson’s fame, in a great measure, may be said to be founded in his judgment of selection with regard to poetry; though he sometimes took unwarrantable liberties with his author, in order to accommodate the lines to his music. Perhaps no composer copied less from others than Jackson, jet at the same time it must be admitted that he was a palpable mannerist. His most interesting and novel melodies are too frequently associated with common passages that have existed almost from the origin of music; the descent of four notes in the diatonic order is sufficient to illustrate our meaning. Jackson’s peculiar fort existed in giving an elegant and plaintive melody to elegiac poetry. In constituting harmony, without rendering the middle part or parts of a composition destitute of melody, Jackson stands unrivalled. This is no trivial praise, when it is known that, before his time, composers were, and are at present, very defective in this part of their art. It was a defect in Jackson’s music, that his melody would suit any species of plaintive lines: few of his compositions displayed the art of mingling expression with melody, and preserving the latter in its purity. His “Fairy Fantasies,” not yet published, evince more congruity than any others of his works.

, the founder of the first independent or congregational church in England, was a native of Kent, and received his academical education at St. Mary’s hall, Oxford. Having entered into holy orders, he was made precentor of Corpus Christi college, and afterwards obtained the benefice of Cheriton in Kent. In the year 1604 he published “Reasons taken out of God’s word, and the best of human testimonies, proving the necessity of reforming our churches of England.” The publication of this, and of another work against what was falsely called “learned preaching,” would have brought him under ecclesiastical censure if he had not fled to Holland. At Leyden he became a convert to the Brownist principles, since known by the name of Independency. In Holland he published several treatises, and upon his return he avowed a design of setting up a separate congregation upon the model of those in Holland. This, in a short time, he carried into effect, and thus laid the foundation of the first independent congregational chinch in England. He was elected pastor of the church, and continued with his people till the year 1624, when he went to Virginia, where he soon afterwards died. He was author of many publications which were highly esteemed in his day, particularly, 1. “A treatise of the Sufferings and Victory of Christ in the work of our Redemption, &c. written against certain errors in those points publicly preached in London, 1597,” Lond. 1598, 8vo. The points which he endeavours to confute were, 1. That Christ suffered for us the wrath of God, which we may well term the pains of hell. 2. That Christ, after his death on the cross, went not into hell in his soul. 2. “Of the Church and Ministry of England, written in two treatises against the reasons and objections of Mr. Francis Johnson,” Middleburg, 1599, 4to. Our author and Mr. Johnson, who was a Brownist, and lived in Holland, had several disputes at Amsterdam about the church of England’s being a true church. 3. “Defence of a treatise touching the Sufferings and Victory of Christ in the work of our Redemption,” 1600, 4to. 4. “Reasons taken out of God’s word,” &c. already merrtioned, 16CH, 4to. 5. “A Position against vain-glorious> and that which is falsely called learned preactiing,” 1604, 8vo. 6. “The divine beginning and institution of Christ’s true, visible, and material Church,” Leyden, 1610, 8vo. 7. “Plain and clear Exposition of the Second Commandment,” 1610, 8vo. 8. “Declaration and opening of certain points, with a sound confirmation of some others, in a treatise entitled * The divine beginning,' &c.” Middleburg, 1611. He wrote and published likewise several pieces, as the “Counter- Poison,” &c. which being printed privately, or on the continent, are rarely to be met with.

, an industrious French author and bibliographer, was born at Chalons sur Saone, Aug. 20, 1608. He was educated among the Carmelites, and entered into that order in 1625, and, during his studies, the distinguished progress he made in theology and 'he belles lettres, procured him easy access to the libraries and the collections of literary men of eminence, who contributed very readily to promote his taste for bibliography and literary history. In 1639 he went to Italy, and resided some time at Rome, consulting the libraries, and collecting materials for his future works, particularly his “Bibliotheca Pontificia,” which he undertook at the solicitation of Gabriel Naude“, and published at Lyons in 1642; but this is by far the worst specimen of his talents, and has many ridiculous errors, which we can only ascribe to his having hastily copied erroneous catalogues, without consulting the books themselves. On his return to Paris he became librarian to de Gondi, afterwards cardinal de Retz, and was likewise appointed counsellor and almoner to the king. We find him then librarian to de Harlay, first president of the parliament of Paris, in whose house he lodged, and where he died May 10, 1670. He was a man of great industry and application, and continually employed in inquiries into the history of literature and literary men; but he was deficient in critical taste, undertook too many things at once, and hence committed errors which have thrown a suspicion on the general accuracy of all his works. Niceron has enumerated thirty-seven of his publications, of which the principal are, 1.” Bibliotheca Pontificia,“already mentioned, Lyons, 1643, 4to. 2.” Traite“des plus belles Bibliotheques du monde,” Paris, 1644, 8vo. 3. “Bibliotheca Parisina, hoc est Catalogus omnium librorum Parisiis annis 1643 & 1644 inclusive excusorum,” Paris, 1645, 4to. This catalogue, for such it simply is, without any thing but the titles of the books, he continued to the year 1650; and by way of supplement compiled his “Bibliotheca Gallica universalis,” for the same or a greater number of years, including books published in other parts of France. 4. “De Claris Scriptoribus Cabilonensibus, libri tres,” 1652, 4to. Among the many plans which he meditated, one was an universal library of French authors, which he is said to have compiled, but what became of it is not known. If completed, as Mr. Dibdin says, in 1638, it could not have been a work of much accuracy, for he had then scarcely attained his thirtieth year, and published long afterwards works which sufficiently shew that he never attained much experience and correctness in his researches.

, an English poet, descended of a Cornish family, was the third son of the rev. Richard Jago, rector of Beaudesert, or Beldesert, in Warwickshire, by Margaret, daughter of William Parker, gent, of Henley in Arden, and was born Oct. 1, 1715. He received his classical education under the rev. Mr. Crumpton, an excellent schoolmaster at Solihull in the same county, but one whose severity our poet has thought proper to record in his “Edge-hill.” At this school he formed an intimacy, which death only dissolved, with the poet Shenstone, whose letters to him have since been published. In their early days they probably exchanged their juvenile verses, and afterwards communicated to each other their more serious studies and pursuits. Somerville also appears to have encouraged our author’s first attempts, which were made at a yet earlier period, when under his father’s humble roof. From school he was entered as a servitor of University college, Oxford, where Shenstone, then a commoner of Pembroke, the late rev. Richard Greaves, Mr. Whistler, and others who appear among Shenstone’s correspondents, showed him every respect, notwithstanding the inferiority of his rank. A young man of whatever merit, who was servitor, was usually visited, if visited at all, with secrecy, but this prejudice is now so much abolished that the same circumspection is not thought necessary. He took his master’s degree July 9, 1738, having entered into the church the year before, and served the curacy of Snitterfield, near Stratford-upon-Avon. His father died in 1740. In 1744, or according to Shenstone’s letters, in 1743, he. married Dorothea Susanna Fancourt, daughter of the rev. Fancourt of Kimcote in Leicestershire, a young lady whom he had known from her childhood.

No circumstance, however, in James’s reign was more unpopular than his treatment of the celebrated sir Walter Raleigh, after the detection of a conspiracy with lord Grey, and lord Cobham, to set aside the succession in favour of Arabella Stuart: he was tried and capitally convicted, but being reprieved, he was kept thirteen years in prison. In 1615 he obtained by bribery his release from prison, but the king would not grant him a pardon. He went out on an expedition with the sentence of death hanging over his head; he was unsuccessful in his object, and on his return the king ordered him to be executed on his former sentence. James is supposed to have been more influenced to this deed by the court of Spain than by any regard to justice. The influence of that court on James appeared soon after in his negociations for marrying his son prince Charles to the infanta. The object was, however, not attained, and he afterwards married him to the French princess Henrietta, with the disgraceful stipulation, that the children of that marriage should be educated by their mother, a bigoted papist, till they were thirteen years of age. As he aavanced in years he was disquieted by a concurrence of untoward circumstances. The dissentions of his parliament were very violent, and the affairs of his son-in-law, the elector palatine, now king of Hungary, also were in a very disastrous state. He had undertaken the cause of the protestants of Germany, but instead of being the arbiter in the cause of others, he was stripped of his own dominions. In his defence, James declared war against the king of Spain and the emperor, and sent troops over to Holland to act in conjunction with prince Maurice for the recovery of the palatinate; but from mismanagement, the greater part of them perished by sickness, and the whole enterprise was defeated. Oppressed with grief for the failure of his plans, the king was seized with an intermitting fever, of which he died in March 1625. It would be difficult, says Hume, to find a reign less illustrious, yet more unspotted and unblemished, than that of James in both kingdoms. James possessed many virtues, but scarcely any of them pure or free from the contagion of neighbouring vices. His learning degenerated into pedantry and prejudice, his generosity into profusion, his good nature into pliability and unmanly fondness, his love of peace into pusillanimity, and his wisdom into cunning. His intentions were just, but more adapted to the conduct of private life than to the government of kingdoms. He was an encourager of learning, and was himself an author of no mean genius, considering the times in which he lived. His chief works were, “Basilicon Doron” and “The true Law of free Monarchies” but he is more known for his adherence to witchcraft and demoniacal possessions in his “Demonology,” and for his “Counterblast to Tobacco.” He was also a poet, and specimens of his talent, such as it was, are to be found in many of our miscellanies. He also wrote some rules and cautels t for the use of professors of the art, which, says Mr. Ellis, have been long, and perhaps deservedly disregarded. The best specimen of his poetical powers is his “Basilicon Doron,” which bishop Percy has reprinted in his “Reliques,” and declares that it would not dishonour any writer of that time. Both as a man of learning, and as a patron of learned men, sufficient justice, in our opinion, has never been done to the character of James I.; and although a discussion on the subject would extend this article too far, it would not be difficult to prove that in both respects he was entitled to a considerable degree of veneration.

He had made good progress in this undertaking, and no doubt would have proceeded much farther towards completing his design, had not he been prevented by death. This happened August 1629. He was buried towards the upper end of New college chapel at Oxford. Wood informs us, that he left behind him the character of being the most industrious and indefatigable writer against the papists, that had been educated in Oxford since the reformation; and in reality his designs were so great, and so well known to be for the public benefit of learning and the church of England, that Camden, speaking of him in his ife-time, calls him “a learned man and a true lover of books, wholly dedicated to learning; who is now laboriously searching the libraries of England, and proposeth that for the public good which will be for the great benefit of England.”

, nephew of the preceding, was born at Newport, in the Isle of Wight, in 1592, and admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, Sept. 23, 1608. In October 1611, he took the degree of B A. and in Jan. 1615, that of M. A. in which year also he became probationer fellow of his college. Having entered into holy orders, he preached frequently, and arrived to the degree of bachelor in divinity. Upon what occasion we know not, he travelled abroad; and was in Russia, in 1619, a tour to which country was very uncommon in those days. He was esteemed to be well versed in most parts of learning, and was noted, among his acquaintance, as a good Grecian and poet, an excellent critic, antiquary, and divine; and was admirably skilled i'n the Saxon and Gothic languages. As for his preaching, it was not approved of by any of the university, excepting by some of the graver sort. Of three sermons, delivered by him before the academics, one of them, concerning the observation of Lent, was without a text, according to the most ancient manner; another was against it, and a third beside it; “shewing himself thereby,” says Anthony Wood, “a humourous person.” Selden was much indebted to him for assistance in the composition of his “Marmora Arundeliana,” and acknowledges him, in the preface to that book, to be “Vir multijugae studiique indefatigabilis.” Mr. James also exerted the utmost labour and diligence in arranging and classifying sir Robert Cotton’s library; and it is somewhat singular that bishop Nicolson imputes the same kind of blame to him, of which Osborn, the bookseller, more coarsely accused Dr. Johnson, when compiling the Harieian Catalogue, viz. “that being greedy of making extracts out of the books of our history for his own private use, he passed carelessly over a great many very valuable volumes.” Nothing was wantnig to him, and to the encouragement of his studies, but a sinecure or a prebend; if he had obtained either of which, Wood says, the labours of Hercules would have seen/ted to be a trifle. Sir Symonds D'Ewes has described him as an atheistical profane scholar, but otherwise witty and moderately learned. “He had so screwed himself,” adds sir Symonds, “into the good opinion of sir Robert Cotton, that whereas at first he only permitted him the use of some of his books; at last, some two or three years before his death, he bestowed the custody of his whole library on him. And he being a needy sharking companion, and very expensive, like old sir Ralph Starkie when he lived, let out, or lent out, sir Robert Cotton’s most precious manuscripts for money, to any that would be his customers; which,” says sir Symonds, “1 once made known to sir Robert Cotton, before the said James’s face.” The whole of these assertions may be justly suspected. His being an atheistical profane scholar does not agree with Wood’s account of him, who expressly asserts that he was a severe Calvinist; and as to the other part of the accusation, it is undoubtedly a strong circumstance in Mr. James’s favour, that he continued to be trusted, protected, and supported, by the Cotton family to the end of his clays. (See our account of Sir Robert Cotton, vol. X. p. 326 et seqq.) This learned and laborious man fell a victim to intense study, and too abstemious and mortified a course of living. His uncle, Dr. Thomas James, in a letter to Usher, gives the following character of him: “A kinsman of mine is at this present, by my direction, writing Becket’s life, wherein it shall be plainly shewed, both out of his own writings, and those of his time, that he was not, as he is esteemed, an arch-saint, but an archrebel; and that the papists have been not a little deceived by him. This kinsman of mine, as well as myself, should be right glad to do any service to your lordship in this kind. He is of strength, and well both able and learned to effectuate somewhat in this kind, critically seen both in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, knowing well the languages both French, Spanish, and Italian, immense and beyond all other men in reading of the Mss. of an extraordinary style in penning; such a one as I dare balance with any priest or Jesuit in the world of his age, and such a one as I could wish your lordship had about you; but paupertas inimica bonis est monbus, and both fatherless and motherless, and almost (but for myself) I may say (the: more is pity) friendless.”

His fever powder was for a long time violently opposed by the faculty, who, as the composition was kept a secret, considered it as a nostrum, and refused to prescribe or countenance it. The admirable effects experienced from it forced it into general use, and it is now considered as the most efficacious medicine for fevers that is known. Dr. Pearson, who, in the Philosophical Transactions,vol. LXXXI. took great pains to analyze it, concludes that “by calcining bone ashes, that is, phosphorated lime, with antimony in a certain proportion, and afterwards exposing the mixture to a white heat, a compound may be formed containing the same ingredients, in the same proportion, and possessing the same chemical properties;” and the London Pharmacopoeia of 1788 contains a prescription, under the title of Pulvis Antimonialis, which is intended to answer the same purposes. “It is well known,” says Dr. Pearson, “that this powder cannot be prepared by following the directions of the specification in the court of chancery.” He therefore instituted a laborious chemical inquiry, first analytical, and then synthetical, in order to ascertain the composition.

According to the receipt in the possession of Mr. Bromfield, by which this powder was prepared forty-five years ago, and before any medicine was known by the name of James’s powder, two pounds of hartshorn shavings must be boiled, to dissolve all the mucilage, and then, being dried, be calcined with one pound of crude antimony, till the smell of sulphur ceases, and a light grey powder is produced. The same prescription was given to Mr. Willis above forty years ago, by Dr. John Eaton of the college of physicians, with the material addition, however, of ordering the calcined mixture to be exposed to a given beat in a close vessel, to render it white.“” Schroeder prescribes equal weights of antimony and calcined hartshorn; and Poterius and Michaelis, as quoted by Frederic Hoffman, merely order the calcination of these two substances together (assigning no proportion) in a reverberatory fire for several days." It has been alleged, that Dr. James obtained the receipt for his powder of a German baron named Schwanberg, or one Baker, to whom Schwanberg had sold it. This account we have not been able to verify, but if it- be true, baron Schwanberg, as he is called, was probably the descendant of the Schawanberg mentioned so long ago. Be it as it may, Dr. James was able to give that credit and currency to the medicine which otherwise it would not have had, and the public are therefore indebted to him for publishing, if not for inventing, a preparation of most admirable effect.

, a celebrated Dominican, so called from the place of his birth in the state of Genoa, was born about 1230. He was provincial and counsellor of his order, and afterwards appointed archbishop of Genoa, by pope Nicholas IV. 1292. He ruled his church with great wisdom and prudence, held a provincial council in 1293, and died July 14, 1298. He left a “Chronicle of Genoa,” published in tom. XXVI. of the collection of Italian authors by Muratori; a great number of “Sermons,” 1589, and 1602, 2 vols. 8vo, and other works; among the most celebrated is a collection of legends of the saints, known by the name of “The Golden Legend;” the first edition is Cologna, 1470, fol. scarce; the Italian translation, Venice, 1476, fol. is also very scarce, as is the first edition of the French translation by John Batallier, Lyons, 1476, folio. This work contains so many puerile and ridiculous fables, that Melchior Cano said, “the author had a mouth of iron, a heart of lead, and but little wisdom, or soundness of judgment.”

, an eminent artist, the Vandyck of Scotland, was born in Aberdeen in 1586. At what age he went abroad is not known, but he studied under Rubens, with Vandyck, and returned to Scotland in 1628. After his return, he applied with indefatigable industry to portrait in oil, though he sometimes practised in history and landscape. His largest portraits were generally somewhat less than life. His excellence is said to consist in delicacy and softness, with a clear and beautiful colouring. When king Charles I. visited Scotland in 1633, the magistrates, knowing his majesty’s taste, employed Jameson to make drawings of the Scotish monarchs, with which the king was so much pleased, that he sat to him for a full length picture, presented him with a diamond ring from his finger, and on account of a complaint in his eyes or head, the king made him wear his hat, a privilege which he ever after used, and commemorated by always drawing himself with his hat on. So far also he imitated his master Rubens.

Mr. Jameson died at Edinburgh in 1644, and was interred in the churchyard of the Grey Friars, but without, any monument. By his will, written witli his own hand in 1641, and breathing a spirit of much piety and benevolence, he provides kindly for his wife and children, and leaves many legacies to his relations and friends. Of his family, his daughter Mary was thrice married: first to Mr. Burnett, of EIrick, in the county of Aberdeen; afterwards to James Gregory, the celebrated mathematician; and lastly to Mr. Eddie, one of the magistrates of Aberdeen. By all these gentlemen she had children, and many of the descendants of the two first have numerous families in the county of Aberdeen. Mary seems to have inherited a portion of her father’s genius. Several specimens of her needle-work remain, particularly Jephtha’s rash vow; Susannah and the Elders, &c. probably from a design of her father’s; these now adorn the East end of St. Nicholas church, Aberdeen. Though Jameson was little known in England, and has not been noticed by any English writer on the arts, except lord Orford, his character, as well as his works, were highly esteemed in his own country. Arthur Johnston, the poet, addressed to him an elegant Latin epigram, on the picture of the marchioness of Huntley, which may be seen in the works of that author, printed at Middleburgh in 1642.

, a nonconformist divine, some of whose works are still highly popular, was born in 1636. He was the son of a clergyman in Hertfordshire, and the third of five brothers, who were all bred to the ministry were all consumptive, and all died under forty years of age. In 1655 he became a student of Christ Church Oxford, and took his master’s degree, but was ejected soon after the Restoration for nonconformity. He then set up a meeting at Rodierhithe. He was a young man of great industry and strictness of life, and his preaching is said to have been attended with signal effects upon many, especially in the time of the plague, when he entered into the deserted pulpits, and preached to great numbers. He also made it his business to visit the sick at that dangerous period. His labours, which were too many for his delicate constitution, are said to have hastened his death, which happened March 16, 1674. A considerable number of his “Sermons” are in print. He also published the well-known Life of his elder brother John, a young man of extraordinary piety, which, with his very popular “Token for Children,” has often been reprinted. His “Legacy to his Friends,” before which is his portrait, contains twenty-seven famous instances of remarkable deliverances from dangers by sea.

, a French lady, famous for her writings, was born about 1640, at Alençon in Normandy, where her father was provost. Her passions as well as her genius came forward very early. Being obliged to quit Alençon, in consequence of an intrigue with one of her cousins, she went to Paris, where she undertook to support herself by her genius, studied the drama, and published at the same time some little novels, by which she acquired a name. She had, by her own description, a lively and pleasing countenance, though not amounting to beauty, nor entirely spared by the small-pox. Her attractions, however, soon furnished her with lovers, and among them she distinguished M. Villedieu, a young captain of infantry, of an elegant person and lively genius. He had been already married about a year, but she persuaded him to endeavour to dissolve his marriage. This proved impracticable; nor was it likely from the first to be effected; but the attempt served her as a pretext for her attachment. She followed her lover to camp, and returned to Paris by the name of madame de Villedieu. This irregular union was not long happy; and their disagreements had arisen to a considerable height, when Villedieu was ordered to the army, where soon after he lost his life. The pretended widow comforted herself by living among professed wits and dramatic writers, and leading such a life as is common in dissipated societies. A fit of devotion, brought on by the sudden death of one of her female friends, sent her for a time to a convent, where she lived with much propriety, till her former adventures being known in the society, she could no longer remain in it. Restored to the world, in the house of madame de St. Ramaine, her sister, she soon exchanged devotion again for gallantry. She now a second time married a man who was only parted from, his wife this was the marquis de la Chasse, by whom she had a son, who died when only a year old, and the father not long after. The inconsolable widow was soon after united to one of her cousins, who allowed her to resume the name of Villedieu. After living a few years longer in society, she retired to a little village called Clinchemare in the province of Maine, where she died in 1683. Her works were printed in 1702, and form ten volumes 12mo, to which two more were added in 1721, consisting chiefly of pieces by other writers. Her compositions are of various kinds: 1. Dramas. 2. Miscellaneous poems, fables, &c. 3. Romances; among which are, “Les Disordres de l'Amour;” “Portraits des Foiblesses Humaines;” “Les Exilés de la Cour d'Auguste;” which are reckoned her best productions in this styje: also, “Cleonice,” “Carmente,” “Les Galanteries Grenadines,” “Les Amours des Grands Hommes,” “Lysandre,” “Les Memoirs du Serail,” &c. 4. Other works of an amusing kind, such as, “Les Annales Galantes,” “Le Journal Amoreux,” &c.

The style of this lady is rapid and animated, but her pencil is not always correct, nor her incidents probable. Her short histories certainly had the merit of extinguishing the taste for the old tedious romances, and led the way to the novel, but were by no means of such excellence in that style as those that have since been written by Duclos, Marivaux, Marmontel, and others. She has also the fault of attributing her feigned adventures to great personages known in history, and thus forming that confusion of fictitious and real narratives which is so pernicious to young readers. Her verse is inferior to her prose, being languid and feeble.

, son of Dr. John Jebb, dean of Casbell, was born in London, early in 1736. He was a man much celebrated among the violent partizans for unbounded liberty, religious and political; and certainly a man of learning and talents, though they were both so much absorbed in controversy as to leave little among his writings of general use. His education was begun in Ireland, and finished in England. His degrees were taken at Cambridge, where he bore public offices, and obtained the vicarage of St. Andrew’s, and where he married a daughter of Dr. Torkington, of Huntingdonshire, who was grand-daughter to the earl of Harborough. His college was Peter-house. He early took up the plan of giving theological lectures, which were attended by several pupils, till his peculiar opinions became known in 1770, when a prohibition was published in the university. How soon he had begun to deviate from the opinions he held at the time of ordination is uncertain, but in a letter dated Oct. 21, 1775, he says, “I have for seven years past, in my lectures, maintained steadily the proper unity of God, and that he alone should be the object of worship.” He adds, that he warned his hearers that this was not the received opinion, but that his own was settled, and exhorted them to inquire diligently. This confession seems rather inconsistent with the defence he addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury in 1770. He was a strenuous advocate for the establishment of annual examinations in the university, but could not prevail. In. 1775, he came to the resolution of resigning his ecclesiastical preferments, which he did accordingly; and then, by the advice of his friends, took up the study of physic. For this new object he studied indefatigably, and in 1777, obtained his degree by diploma from St. Andrew’s, and was admitted a licentiate in London.

, an English divine, was born Dec. 20, 1647, at Ipswich, where he had his grammar-learning; and thence removed in 1664 to Catharine-hall, Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. John Echard. Here he took his first degree, and as soon after as he could, he went into orders, and accepted of the curacy of Dennington in Suffolk. He applied very closely to his studies, lived quite retired, and was not known or heard of in the world for some years. At length, becoming known, he was, in 1678, elected minister of St. Peter’s of Mancroft in Norwich; where his good temper, exemplary life, judicious preaching, and great learning, soon recommended him to the esteem of the wisest and best men in his parish. Sir Thomas Brown, so well known to the learned world, respected and valued him. Sir Edward Atkyns, lord chief baron of the Exchequer, who then spent the long vacations in that city, took great notice of his singular modesty of behaviour, and rational method of recommending religion in sermons; gave him an apartment in his house, took him up to town with him, carried him into company, and brought him acquainted with Dr. Tillotson, then preacher at Lincoln’s-inn, who often engaged Mr. Jeffery to preach for him, and was probably the means of making him known to Dr. Whichcote, three volumes of whose sermons he afterwards published, and to other eminent men. In 1687, Dr. Sharp, then dean of Norwich, afterwards archbishop of York, obtained for him, without solicitation, the two small livings of Kirton and Falkenham in Suffolk; and, in 1694, archbishop Tillotson made him archdeacon of Norwich. In 17 Jo he married a second wife; and after his marriage, discontinued his attendance on the convocation: and when he was asked the reason, would pleasantly excuse himself out of the old law, which saith, “that, when a man has taken a new wife, he shall not be obliged to go out to war.” He died in 1720, aged 72.

, baron Wem, commonly known by the name of Judge Jeffreys, was the sixth son of John Jeffreys, esq. of Acton in Denbighshire, by Margaret daughter to sir Thomas Ireland of Beausey, near Warrington. He was educated first at the free-school at Shrewsbury, from which he was removed to that of Westminster, where he became a good proficient in the learned languages; and was thence removed to the Inner-Temple, where he applied himself very assiduously to the law. His father’s family was large, and his temper parsimonious, consequently the young man’s allowance was very scanty, and hardly sufficient to support him decently: but his own ingenuity supplied all deficiencies, till he came to the bar; to which, however, he never had any regular call. In 1666, he was at the assize at Kingston, where very few counsellors attended, on account of the plague then raging. Here necessity gave him permission to put on a gown; and to plead; and he continued the practice unrestrained, till he reached the highest employments in the law.

This wretched man left an only son, who inherited his title as lord Jeffreys, and also his intemperate habit. Two poetical efforts, in the “State Poems,” 4 vols. 8vo, are attributed to him, and he is said to have published “An Argument in the case of Monopolies,” 1689. He died in 1703, when his title became extinct, and was buried in St. Mary Aldermanbury church. He married Charlotte, the daughter and heiress of Philip earl of Pembroke, by whom he had an only daughter, who married Thomas earl of Pomfretv After his death, the countess of Pomfret became a munificent benefactress to the university of Oxford, hy presenting to it the noble collection of the Pomfret marbles. Granger informs us that this very amiable lady met with very rude insults from the populace on the western road, merely because she was grand-daughter of the inhuman Jeffreys. Jeffreys’s seat, well known by the name of Buistrode, was purchased by William earl of Portland, in queen Anne’s reign, and until lately has been the principal seat of the Portland family. There is some reason to think that judge Jeffreys was created earl of Flint, but the fact has never been clearly ascertained.

After the restoration he was designed to be made one of the judges in Westminster-hall, but refusing to comply with the usual demands of the perquisites on that occasion, which he thought unreasonable after having suffered so much, he retired to his estate in Glamorganshire, then restored to him, and died at Cowbridge, in that county, Dec. 6, 1667, aged about eighty-one or two. He was buried at the west end of that church. He died as he lived, inculcating with his last breath, to his relations and friends, loyalty to his majesty and obedience to the laws of the land. He was a person of great ability in his profession, and was often consulted by sir John Banks and William Noy in their attorneyships. His vindication of himself, and several other occasional tracts of his writing, aJl very short, were printed in 1648, 12mo, under the title of liis “Works.” Most of these were written in prison, and have been often reprinted. He is also the author of “A preparative to the treaty with the king,” &c. 1648 “A Proposition for the safety of the king;” and a Reply to an Answer to it. But he is now chiefly known in the profession by his “Reports,” or “Eight Centuries of Reports solemnly adjudged in the exchequer chamber, or upon writs of error, from 4 Hen. III. to 21 Jac. I.” originally published in French, 1661, fol. and again in French 1734, folio; but the third edition was translated by Theodore Barlow, esq. with the addition of many references, and a table of the principal matters, and published in 1771 or 1777, folio. Mr. Bridgman adds to his publications another, which was published in 1657, 12mo, entitled “Pacis consultum, or a directory to the public peace, briefly describing the antiquity, extent, &c. of several county corporation courts, especially the court-leet,” &c.

The detail of this negotiation is well known, and maybe seen in sir Leoline’s letters, and his colleague’s works, to which we must refer; it being sufficient to observe here, that all expedients proposed by the two mediators were rejected. Sir Leoline quitted the place on Feb. 16, 1679; and retiring to Neerbos, received a warrant from his royal master, dated Feb. 14, three days after the date of his letter of revocation, appointing him ambassador extraordinary at the Hague, in the room of sir William Temple, who had been then recalled. He accordingly arrived there, March 1; but continued in that station no longer than the 25th of the same month; for, by a new commission, dated Feb. 20, and which came to his hands six days after, he returned to Nimeguen March 26, authorised to resume his mediatorial function, at the desire of the prince of Orange and the States, and the earnest intreaty of the Northern princes. His instructions now left him in a great measure to himself, without other direction than to act as Be s ould find most consistent with his majesty’s honour, and the good of the general peace; which, as he was a modest man and very diffident of himself, put him under great anxiety. He happily succeeded, however, in accommodating all differences, and returned home, Aug. 1679, after having been employed about four years and a half in this tedious treaty.

, a pious English divine and writer, was born in 1646, and was descended from an ancient family at Eaton under Heywood, in Shropshire. He was related to bishop Williams, of Chichester, to whom he dedicated his book of “Prayers.” Where he was educated we are not told, nor is it discoverable that he was at either university. He appears, however, when admitted into orders, to have been for some time curate of Harlay, in Shropshire. On the death of his rector, Richard earl of Bradford, the patron of the living, hearing Mr. Jenks spoken of respectfully by the parishioners, went one Sunday, in private, to hear him preach; and was so much pleased with the discourse, that he presented him to the living in 1668, and made him his chaplain. Mr. Jenks had also the living of Kenley, a small village about two miles from Harlay, at both which churches he officiated alternately, and kept no curate until old age and infirmities made assistance necessary. He died at Harlay on May 10, 1724, and was buried in the chancel of that church, where there is a monument to his memory. The work by which Mr. Jenks is best known is his “Prayers and offices of Devotion,” of which the 27th edition was published in 1810 by the Rev. Charles Simeon, fellow of King’s college, Cambridge, with alterations and amendments in style. Mr. Jenks also was the author of “Meditations upon various important subjects,” of which a second edition was published in 1756, 2 vols. 8vo, with a recommendatory preface by Mr. Hervey. This, however, has never attained any high degree of popularity. One of these “Meditations” is upon his coffin, which he kept by him for many years, and in which were two sculls, one of them that of a near relation.

, an eminent dissenter, the son of an ejected nonconformist, was born at Kibworth, in Leicestershire, in 1691. He obtained a good stock of grammar learning at the free-school of his native place, and about 1709 he was sent to pursue a course of academical studies in London, under the care of Dr. Chauncey. Having finished his studies he was appointed one of the preachers at an evening lecture at Rotherhithe, and in 1716 chosen assistant preacher at the meeting near Haberdashers’ hall. Two years afterwards he was elected pastor to the congregational church in Old Gravel-lane, Wapping, in which office he continued during forty-four years. Within a year after he entered upon it, he refused to comply with the requisition brought forwards by many of his brethren at Salters’-hall, to sign certain articles relating to the Trinity. Mr. Jennings, about 1730, published a small volume of sermons addressed to the young, entitled “The Beauty and Benefit of early Piety,” which was followed by other publications of a practical nature. In 1740- he entered the lists against Dr. John Taylor, concerning original sin, which doctrine he strenuously justified; but notwithstanding their difference in doctrinal points, they continued in habits of intimacy and friendship. In 1743 Mr. Jennings was elected trustee of Mr. Coward’s charities, and one of the lecturers at St. Helen’s; and in the following year he became divinity tutor, in the room of Mr, Eames, at the academy, at that time chiefly supported by Mr. Coward’s funds. In this work he was earnestly intent: nothing ever diverted him from a daily attendance in the lecture room; and he was indefatigable in the discharge of the duties belonging to his office. The habits of early rising, of order in the arrangement of business, and of punctuality in his engagements, enabled him to perform more than most men would have been able to get through. As a relief to the studies of the mind he employed himself in the common mechanical arts of life. His method of communicating instruction was easy and familiar, and his general deportment towards his pupils affable and friendly. He, however, determined to maintain in his academy the reputation for orthodoxy which it had acquired, and would not suffer young men to deviate from his standard of faith; and in some cases he had recourse to expulsion. In 1747 Mr. Jennings published “An introduction to the Use of the Globes,” &e. which maintained a considerable degree of popularity for more than half a century. In 1749 the university of St. Andrew’s in Scotland conferred on the author the degree of D.D. After this he published “An appeal to reason and common sense for the Truth of the Holy Scriptures.” He died in September 1762, when he was seventy-one years of age. He was highly valued by his acquaintance, and he had the honour to educate many pupils who proved ornaments to the dissenting interest, and have rendered eminent service to science and the world. After his death was printed, from a ms copy, “An introduction to the knowledge of Medals.” Of this science Dr. Jennings seems to have known very little, and the editor of his work less. The blunders in this work are numerous, and gross. In 1766 a more elaborate work was published by Dr. Furneaux from the Mss. of Dr. Jennings, entitled “Jewish Antiquities; or a course of lectures on the Three First Books of Godwin’s Moses and Aaron: to which is annexed a dissertation on the Hebrew language,” in 2 vols. 8vo. This is a work of great merit, and deserves the perusal of all who would obtain an intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures, particularly of the Old Testament. A new edition of the “Jewish Antiquities” was published about three years since, it having been long out of print, and very much called for.

Soon after his father’s death, at the general election in 1742, he was unanimously chosen one of the representatives for the county of Cambridge. From this time he continued to sit in parliament, either for the county or borough of Cambridge, until 1780, except on the call of a new parliament in 1754, when he was returned for the borougli of Dumvich. In 1755, he was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the board of trade and plantations, at which he sat during. all changes of administration, until the business of the board, which was not great, was removed into another department. At the time of its abolition, it consisted of our author, the present earl of Carlisle, the late lord Auckland, and Gibbon the historian. Mr. Cumberland, the well-known dramatic poet, was secretary. His parliamentary conduct was more uniform than is supposed to be consistent with freedom of opinion, or the usual attachments of party. When he was first elected a member, he found sir Robert Walpole on the eve of being dismissed from the confidence of the House of Commons, and he had the courage, unasked and unknown, to give his support to the falling minister, as far as he could without contributing his eloquence, for Mr. Jenyns seldom spoke, and only in reply to a personal question. He was conscious that he could make no figure as a public speaker, and early desisted from the attempt. After the dismissal of sir Robert Walpole, he constantly ranked among the friends of government. Without giving a public assent to every measure of the minister for the day, he contrived to give him no offence, and seems very early to have conceived an abhorrence of systematic oppositions. What his opinions were on great constitutional questions, may be found in his writings, where, however, they are not laid down with much precision, and seem at no time of his life to have been steady. In his attendance at the board of trade, he was very assiduous, and bestowed much attention on the commercial interests of his country. He has not left any thing in print expressly on this subject, but his biographer has given some of his private opinions, which are liberal and manly.

, or Hieronymus, a very celebrated father of the church, was born of Christian parents at Stridon, a town situated upon the confines of Pannoniaand Dalmatia, in the year 331. His father Eusebius, who was a man of rank and substance, took the greatest care of his education; and, after grounding him well in the language of his own country, sent him to Rome, where he was placed under the best masters in every branch of literature. Donatus, well known for his “Commentaries upon Virgil anfl Terence,” was his master in grammar, as Jerom himself tells us: and under this master he made a prodigious progress in every thing relating to the belles lettres. He had also masters in rhetoric, Hebrew, and in divinity, who conducted him through all parts of learning, sacred and profane; through history, antiquity, the knowledge of languages, and of the discipline and doctrines of the various sects in philosophy; so that he might say of himself, as he afterwards did, with some reason, “Ego philosophus, rhetor, grammaticus, dialecticus, Hebraeus, Groecus, Latinus, &c.” He was particularly careful to accomplish himself in rhetoric, or the art of speaking, because, as Erasmus says in the life which he prefixed to his works, he had observed, that the generality of Christians were despised as a rude illiterate set of people; on which account he thought, that the unconverted part of the world would sooner be drawn over to Christianity, if it were but set off and enforced in a manner suitable to the dignity and majesty of it. But though he was so conversant with profane learning in his youth, he renounced it entirely afterwards, and did all he could to make others renounce it also; for he relates a vision, which he pretended was given to him, “in which he was dragged to the tribunal of Christ, and terribly threatened, and even scourged, for the grievous sin of reading secular and profane writers, Cicero, Virgil, and Horace, whom for that reason he resolved never to take into his hands any more.”

He was in his 31st year, when he entered upon this monastic course of life; and he carried it, by his own practice, to that height of perfection, which he ever after enforced upon others so zealously by precept. He divided all his time between devotion and study: he exercised himself much in watchings and fastings; slept little, ate less, and hardly allowed himself any recreation. He applied himself very severely to the study of the Holy Scriptures, which he is said to have gotten by heart, as well as to the study of the Oriental languages, which he considered as the only keys that could let him into their true sense and meaning, and which he learned from a Jew Who visited him privately lest he should offend his brethren. After he had spent four years in this laborious way of life, his health grew so impaired, that he was obliged to return to Antioch: where the church at that time was divided by factions, Meletius, Paulinus, and Vitalis all claiming a right to the bishopric of that place. Jerom being a son of the church of Rome, where he was baptized, would not espouse any party, till he knew the sense of his own church upon this contested right. Accordingly, he wrote to Damasus, then bishop of Rome, to know whom he must consider as the lawful bishop of Antioch; and upon Damasus’s naming Paulinus, Jerom acknowledged him as such, and was ordained a presbyter by him in 378, but would never proceed any farther in ecclesiastical dignity. From this time his reputation for piety and learning began to spread abroad, and be known in the world. He went soon after to Constantinople, where he spent a considerable time with Gregory Nazianzen; whom he did not disdain to call his master, and owned, that of him "he learned the right method of expounding the Holy Scriptures. Afterwards, in the year 382, he went to Rome with Paulinus, bishop of Antioch, and Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in the isle of Cyprus; where tie soon became known to Damasus, and was made his secretary. He acquitted himself in this post very well, and yet found time to compose several works. Upon the death of Damasus, which happened in the year 385, he began to entertain thoughts of travelling again to the East; to which he was moved chiefly by the disturbances and vexations he met with from the followers of Origen, at Rome. For these, when they had in vain endeavoured, says Cave, to draw him over to their party, raised infamous reports and calumnies against him. They charged him, among other things, with a criminal passion for one Paula, an eminent matron, in whose house he had lodged during his residence at Rome, and who was as illustrious for her piety as for the splendor of her birth, and the dignity of her rank. For these and other reasons he was determined to quit Rome, and accordingly embarked for the East in August in the year 385, attended by a great number of monks and ladies, whom he had persuaded to embrace the ascetic way of life. He sailed to Cyprus, where he paid a visit to Epiphanius; and arrived afterwards at Antioch, where he was kindly received by his friend Paulinus. From Antioch he went to Jerusalem; and the year following from Jerusalem into Egypt. Here he visited several monasteries: but rinding to his great grief the monks every where infatuated with the errors of Origen, he returned to Bethlehem, a town near Jerusalem, that he might be at liberty to cherish and propagate his own opinions, without any disturbance or interruption from abroad. This whole peregrination is particularly related by himself, in one of his pieces against RufRnus; and is very characteristic, and shews much of his spirit and manner of writing.

, a painter of this country, more known from the praises of Pope, who took instructions from him in the art of painting, and other wits, who were influenced probably by the friendship of Pope, than for any merits of his own, was a native of Ireland, and studied for a year under sir Godfrey Kneller. Norris, framer and keeper of the pictures to king William and queen Anne, was the first friend who essentially served him, by allowing him to study from the pictures in the royal collection, and to copy them. At Hamptou-cour the made small copies of the cartoons, and these he sold to Dr. George Clark of Oxford, who then became his protector, and furnished him with money to visit France and Italy. In the eighth number of the Tatler, (April 18, 1709), he is mentioned as “the last great painter Italy has sent us.” Pope speaks of him with more enthusiasm than felicity, and rather as if he was determined to praise, than as if he felt the subject. Perhaps some of the unhappiest lines in the works of that poet are in the short epistle to Jervas. Speaking of the families of some ladies, he says,

The much wished-for event at length was made known, and upon the accession of the new queen, or rather the year after, 1559, Jewel returned.to England; and we find his name, soon after, among the sixteen divines appointed hy queen Elizabeth to hold a disputation in Westminsterabbey against the papists. In July 1559, he was in the commission constituted by her majesty to visit the dioceses of Sarum, Exeter, Bristol, Bath and Wells, and Gloucester, in order to exterminate popery in the west of England; and he was consecrated bishop of Salisbury on Jan. 21 following, and had the restitution of the temporalities April 6, 1560. This promotion was presented to him as a reward for his great merit and learning; and another attestation of these was given him by the university of Oxford, who, in 1565, conferred on him, in his absence, the degree of D. D. in which character he attended the queen to Oxford the following year, and presided at the divinity disputations held before her majesty on that occasion. He had, before, greatly distinguished himself, by a sermon preached at St. Paul’s-cross, soon after he had been made a bishop, in which he gave a public challenge to all the Roman catholics in the world, to produce but one clear and evident testimony out of any father or famous writer who flourished within 600 years after Christ, of the existence of any one of the articles which the Romanists maintain against the church of England; and two years afterwards he published his famous “Apology” for that church. In the mean time he gave a particular attention to his diocese, where he began in his first visitation, and completed in his last, a great reformation, not only in his cathedral and parochial churches, but in all the courts of his jurisdiction. He watched so narrowly the proceedings of his chancellor and archdeacons, and of his stewards and receivers, that they had no opportunities of being guilty of oppression, injustice, or extortion, nor of being a burden, to the people, or a scandal to himself. To prevent these, and the like abuses, for which the ecclesiastical courts are often censured, he sat in his consistory court, and there saw that all things were conducted rightly: he also sat often as an assistant on the bench of civil justice, being himself a justice of the peace.

About the middle of the ninth century, viz. between the pontificates of Leo IV. and Benedict III., a woman, called Joan, was promoted to the pontificate, by the name of John; whom Platina, and almost all other historians, have reckoned as the VIIIth of that name, and others as the Vllth: some call her only John. This female pope was born at Mentz, where she went by the name of English Johnf whether because she was of English extraction, or for what other reason, is not known: some modern historians say she was called Agnes, that is, the chaste, by way of irony, perhaps, before her pontificate. She had from her infancy an extraordinary passion for learning and travelling, and in order to satisfy this inclination, put on the male habit, and went to Athens, in company with one of fcer friends, who was called her favourite lover. From Athens she went to Rome, where she taught divinity; and, in the garb of a doctor, acquired so great reputation for understanding, learning, and probity, that she was unanimously elected pope in the room of Leo IV.

Such is the story, as related in the history of the popes, which was certainly received and avowed as a truth for some centuries. Since it became a matter of dispute, some writers of the Romish church have denied it; some have apologized for it absurdly enough; others in a way that might be admitted, did not that church claim to be infallible: for it was that claim which first brought the truth of this history under examination. The protestants alleged it as a clear proof against the claim; since it could not be denied that in this instance the church was deceived by a woman in disguise. This induced the Roman catholics to search more narrowly than before into the affair; and the result of that inquiry was, first a doubt, and next an improbability, of Joan’s real existence. This led to a further inquiry into the origin of the story; whence it appeared, that there were no footsteps of its being known in the church for near 200 years after it was said to have happened. Æneas Sylvius, who was pope in the fifteenth century under the name of Pius II. was the first who called it in question, and he touched it but slightly, observing, that in the election of that woman there was no error in a matter of faith, but only an ignorance as to a matter of fact; and also that the story was not certain. Yet this very Sylvius suffered Joan’s name to be placed among those of the other popes in the register of Siena, and transcribed the story in his historical work printed at Nuremburg in 1493. The example of Sylvius emboldened others to search more freely into the matter, who, finding it to have no good foundation, thought proper to give it up.

, an eminent antiquary, architect, and critic, was probably a native of Verona, and flourished in the sixteenth century. He was of the order of the Dominicans, but in his travels, and during his scientific labours, wore the habit of a secular priest. When at Rome, where he was first known as an architect, he began to apply to the study of classical antiquities, and made a judicious collection of inscriptions, which he dedicated to Lorenzo de Medici. He was some time at the court of the emperor Maximilian I. and thence went to France about 1500, where Louis X. appointed him royal architect. He built at Paris two bridges over the Seine, that of Notre Dame, and the little bridge. In the mean time, while he had leisure, he employed it in examining ancient manuscripts, and had the felicity to recover all the letters of Pliny the younger, and the work of Julius Obsequens on prodigies. These he arranged for publication, and sent them to Aldus Manutius, by whom they were both printed in 1508, 8vo. He also collated several other classics, and illustrated Caesar’s Commentaries by useful notes and figures, and was the first to give a design of the famous bridge which Caesar built across the Rhine. On his return to Italy, he edited the fine edition of Vitruvius, printed by Aldus in 1511, and enriched it with designs. When the famous bridge the Rialto was burnt down in 1513, he gave a magnificent design for a new one; but that of an inferior architect being preferred, he quitted Venice, and went to Rome, where, after the death of Bramante, he was employed on St. Peter’s church. His last work was the bridge over the Adige, at Verona, which he built in 1520: He died about 1530, at a very advanced age.

, an eminent divine among the nonjurors, the only son of the rev. Thomas Johnson, vicar of Frindsbury, near Rochester, was born Dec. 30, 1662, and was educated in the king’s school in Canterbury, where he made such progress in the three learned languages, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, under Mr. Lovejoy, then master of that school, that when he was very little more than fifteen years of age, he was sent to the university of Cambridge, where he was admitted in the college of St. Mary Magdalen, under the tuition of Mr. Turner, fellow of that house, March the 4th, 1677-8. In Lent term 1681-2, he took the degree of B. A. and soon after was nominated by the dean and chapter of Canterbury to a scholarship in Corpus Christi college' in that university, of the foundation of archbishop Parker, to which he was admitted April the 29th, 1682, under the tuition of Mr. Beck, fellow of that house. He took the degree of M. A. at the commencement 1685. Soon after he entered into deacon’s orders, and became curate to the rector of Upper and Lower Hardres, near Canterbury. He was ordained priest by the right rev. Dr. Thomas Sprat, lord bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster, December the 19th, 1686 and July the 9th, 1687, he was collated to the vicarage of Bough ton under the Blean, by Dr. Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, and at the same time he was allowed by the same archbishop to hold the adjoining vicarage of Hern-hill by sequestration; both which churches he supplied himself. About 1689 one Sale, a man who had counterfeited holy orders, having forged letters of ordination both for himself and his father, came into this diocese, and taking occasion from the confusion occasioned by the revolution during the time archbishop Bancroft was under suspension, and before Dr. Tin lotson was consecrated to the archbishopric, made it his business to find out what livings were held by sequestration only, and procured the broad seal for one of these for himself, and another for his father. On this Mr. Johnson thought it necessary to secure his vicarage of Hern -hi II, that he might prevent Sale from depriving him of that benefice; and archbishop Sancrot't being then deprived ah officio only, but not a bencficio, presented him to Hern-hill, to which he was instituted October the 16th, 1689, by Dr. George Oxenden, vicar-general to the archbishop, but at that time to the dean and chapter of Canterbury, guardians of the spiritualities during the suspension of the archbishop. But as the living had been so long held by sequestration that it was lapsed to the crown, he found it necessary to corroborate his title with the broad seal, which was given him April the 12th, 1690. In 1697. the vicarage of St. John in the Isle of Thanet, to which the town of Margate belongs, becoming void, archbishop Tenison, the patron, considering the largeness of the cure, was desirous to place there a person better qualified than ordinary to supply it, and could think of no man in his diocese more fit than Mr. Johnson, and therefore entreated him to undertake the pastoral care of that large and populous parish. And because the benefice was but small, and the cure very great, the archbishop, to induce him to accept of it, collated him to the vicarage of Appledore (a good benefice) on the borders of Romney Marsh, on the 1st of May, 1697: but Mr. Johnson chose to hold Margate by sequestration only. And having now two sons ready to be instructed in learning, he would not send them to school, but taught them himself; saying that he thought it as much the duty of a father to teach his own children, if he was capable of doing it, as it was of the mother to suckle and nurse them in their infancy, if she was able; and because he believed they would learn better in company than alone, he took two or three boarders to teach with them, the sons of some particular friends. He was much importuned by several others of his acquaintance to take their sons, but he refused. At length, finding he could not attend the he had, his great cure, and his studies, in such a manner as he was desirous to do, he entreated his patron the archbishop, to give him leave entirely to quit Margate, and to retire to his cure of Appledore, which, with some difficulty, was at last granted him; but not till his grace had made inquiry throughout his diocese and the university of Cambridge for one who might be thought qualified to succeed him. He settled at Appledore in 1703, and as soon as his eldest son was fit for the university (which was in 1705) he sent him to Cambridge, and his other son to school till he was of age to be put out apprentice; and dismissed all the rest of his scholars. He seemed much pleased with Appledore at his first retirement thither, as a place where he could follow his studies without interruption. But this satisfaction was not of long continuance; for that marshy air, in a year or two, brought a severe sickness on himself and all his family, and his constitution (which till then had been very good) was so broken, that he never afterwards recovered the health he had before enjoyed. This made him desirous to remove from thence as soon as he could; and the vicarage of Cranbrook becoming void, he asked the archbishop to bestow it on him, which his grace readily did, and accordingly collated him to it April the 13th, 1707, where he continued till his death, holding Appledore with it. In 1710, and again in 1713, he was chosen by the clergy of the diocese of Canterbury to be one of their proctors for the convocation summoned to meet with the parliament in those years. And as the first of these convocations was permitted to sit and act, and to treat of matters of religion (though they brought no business to any perfection, owing to the differences that had been raised between the two houses) he constantly attended the house of which he was a member whilst any matter was there under debate; and his parts and learning came to be known and esteemed by the most eminent clergy of the province, as they had been before by those of the diocese where he lived; so that from this time he was frequently resorted to for his opinion in particular cases, and had letters sent to him from the remotest parts of the province of Canterbury, and sometimes from the other province also, requiring his opinion in matters of learning, especially as to what concerned our religion and ecclesiastical laws. He continued at Cranbrook about eighteen years; and as he had been highly valued, esteemed, and beloved at all other places where he had resided, so was he here also by all that were true friends, says his biographer, “to the pure catholic religion of Jesus Christ, as professed and established in the church of England. But as there were many dissenters of all denominations in that place, and some others, who (though they frequented the church, yet) seemed to like the Dissenters better, and to side with them upon all occasions, except going to their meetings for religious worship, I cannot say how they loved and esteemed him. However, he was so remarkably upright in his life and conversation, that even they could accuse him of no other fault, except his known hearty zeal for the church of England, which all impartial persons would have judged a virtue. For certainly those that have not an hearty affection for a church ought not to be made priests of it. Some of those favourers of the dissenters studied to make him uneasy, by endeavouring to raise a party in his parish against him, merely because they could not make him, like themselves, a latitudinarian in matters of religion; but they failed in their design, and his friends were too many for them *.” A little before he left Appledore, he began to discover that learning to the world, which till this time was little known beyond the diocese where he lived, except to some particular acquaintance, by printing several tracts; though his modesty was such, that he would not put his name to them, till they had at least a second edition. The first of these was a “Paraphrase with Notes on the Book of Psalms according to the Translation retained in our Common Prayer- Book,” published in 1706. The next book he wrote was the “Clergyman’s Vade-Mecum,” 1708, which went through five editions, and was followed, in 1709, by a second part. In 1710 he published the “Propitiatory Oblation in the Eucharist;” in 1714, “The Unbloody Sacrifice/' part I.; and in 1717, part II.; in 1720,” A Collection of Ecclesiastical Laws."

, one of the most eminent and highly-distinguished writers of the eighteenth century, was born on the 18th of September, 1709, at Lichfield in Staffordshire, where his father, Michael Johnson, a native of Derbyshire, of obscure extraction, was at that time a bookseller and stationer. His mother, Sarah Ford, was a native of Warwickshire, and sister to Dr. Ford, physician, who was father to Cornelius Ford, a clergyman of loose character, whom Hogarth has satirized in the print of Modern Midnight Conversation. Our author was the eldest of two sons. Nathaniel, the youngest, died in 1737 in his twenty-fifth year. The father was a man of robust body and active mind, yet occasionally depressed by melancholy, which Samuel inherited, and, with the aid of a stronger mind, was not always able to shake off. He was also a steady high-churchman, and an adherent of the house of Stuart, a prejudice which his son outlived in the nation at large, without entirely conquering in himself. Mrs. Johnson was a woman of good natural understanding, unimproved by education; and our author acknowledged with gratitude, that she endeavoured to instil sentiments of piety as soon as his mind was capable of any instruction. There is little else in his family history worthy of notice, nor had he much pleasure in tracing his pedigree. He venerated others, however, who could produce a recorded ancestry, and used to say, that in him this was disinterested, for he could scarcely teil who was his grandfather. That he was remarkable in his early years has been supposed, but many proofs have not been advanced by his biographers. He had, indeed, a retentive memory, and soon discovered symptoms of an impetuous temper; but these circumstances are not enough to distinguish him from hundreds of children who never attain eminence. In his infancy he was afflicted with the scrophula, which injured his sight, and he was carried to London to receive the royal touch from the hand of queen Anne, the last of our sovereigns who encouraged that popular superstition. He was first taught to read English by a woman who kept a school for young children at Lichfield; and afterwards by one Brown. Latin he learned at Lichfield school, under Mr. Hunter, a man of severe discipline, but an attentive teacher. Johnson owned that he needed correction, and that his master did not spare him; but this, instead of being the cause of unpleasant recollections in his advanced life, served only to convince him that severity in school-education is necessary; and in all his conversations on the subject, he persisted in pleading for a liberal use of the rod. At this school his superiority was soon acknowledged by his companions, who could not refuse submission to the ascendancy which he acquired. His proficiency, however, as in every part of his life, exceeded his apparent diligence. He could learn more than others in the same allotted time: and he was learning when he seemed to be idle. He betrayed an early aversion to stated tasks, but, if roused, he could recover the time he appeared to have lost with great facility. Yet he seems afterwards to have been conscious that much depends on regularity of study, and we find him often prescribing to himself stated portions of reading, and recommending the same to others. No man perhaps was ever more sensible of his failings, or avowed them with more candour; nor, indeed, would many of them have been known, if he had not exhibited them as warnings. His memory was uncommonly tenacious, and to his last days he prided himself on it, considering a defect of memory as the prelude of total decay. Perhaps be carried this doctrine rather too far when he asserted, that the occasional failure of memory in a man of seventy must imply something radically wrong; but it may be in. general allowed, that the memory is a pretty accurate standard of mental strength. Although his weak sight prevented him from joining in the amusements of his schoolfellows, for which he was otherwise well qualified by personal courage and an ambition to excel, he found an equivalent pleasure in sauntering in the fields, or reading such books as came in his way, particularly old romances. For these he retained a fondness throughout life; but was wise and candid enough to attribute to them, in some degree, that unsettled turn of mind which prevented his fixing in any profession.

About the age of fifteen he paid a long visit to his uncle Cornelius Ford; but on his return, his master, Hunter, refused to receive him again on the foundation of Lichfield school. What his reasons were is not known. He was now removed to the school of Stourbridge in Worcestershire, where he remained about a year, with very little acquisition of knowledge; but here, as well as at Lichfield, he gave several proofs of his inclination to poetry, and afterwards published some of these juvenile productions in the Gentleman’s Magazine. From Stourbridge he returned home, where he remained about two years without any regular application. His time, however, was not entirely wasted, as he employed it in reading many of the ancient writers, and stored his mind with so much various information, that when he went to Oxford, Dr. Adams said he “was the best qualified for the university that he had ever known come there.”

During the vacation in the following year, he suffered severely by an attack of his constitutional melancholy, accompanied by alternate irritation, fretfulness, and languor. It appears, however, that he resisted his disorder by every effort of a great mind, and proved that it did not arise from want of mental resources, or weakness of understanding. On his return to the university, he probably 'continued his desultory manner of reading, and occasionally formed resolutions of regular study, in which he seldom persisted. Among his companions he was looked up to as a young man of wit and spirit, singular and unequal in temper, impatient of college rules, and not over-respectful to his seniors. Such at least seems to be the result of Mr. Boswell’s inquiries, but little is known with certainty, except what is painful to relate, that he either put on an air of gaiety to conceal his anxious cares, or secluded himself from company that that poverty might not be known, which at length compelled him to leave college without a degree.

In 1734 he returned to Lichfield, and issued proposals for an edition of the Latin poems of Politian, with the history of Latin poetry, from the aera of Petrarch to the time of Politian, and also the life of Politian; the book to be printed in thirty octavo sheets, price five shillings. Those who have not attended to the literary history of this country will be surprized that such a work could not be undertaken without the precaution of a subscription; and they will regret that in this case the subscription was so inadequate to the expence of printing, as to deter our author from executing what probably would have made him known and patronized by the learned world.

In what manner Johnson was employed for some time after his arrival in London, is not known. He brought a small sum of money with him, and he husbanded it with frugality, while he mixed in such society as was accessible to a friendless and uncourtly scholar, and amused himself in contemplating the manners of the metropolis. It appears that at one time he took lodgings at Greenwich, and proceeded by fits to complete his tragedy. He renewed his application also to Cave, sending him a specimen of a translation of the “History of the Council of Trent,” and desiring to know if Cave would join in the publication of it. Cave appears to have consented, for twelve sheets were printed, for which our author received forty-nine pounds; but another translation being announced about the same period (1738) by a rival whose name was also Samuel Johnson, librarian of St. Martin’s in the Fields, our author desisted, and this other design was also dropped.

In the ourse of the summer he went to Lichfield, where he had left Mrs. Johnson, and there, during a residence of three months, finished his tragedy for the stage. On his return to London with Mrs. Johnson, he endeavoured to prevail on Fleetwood, the patentee of Drurylane theatre, to accept “Irene,” but in this was unsuccessful, and having no interest with any other manager, he laid aside his play in pursuit of literary employment. He had now become personally known to Cave, and began to contribute to the Magazine original poetry, Latin and English, translations, biographical sketches, and other miscellaneous articles, particularly the debates in parliament, under the name of the Senate of Lilliput. At that time the debates were not allowed to be published, as now, the morning after the day of meeting, and the only safe mode of conveying the substance of them to the public was by adopting a historical form at more distant periods. At first Johnson merely revised the manuscript as written by Guthrie, who then supplied this department of the Magazine; but when he had attained a higher rank among authors, the whole devolved on his coadjutor. His only materials were a few notes supplied by persons who attended the houses of parliament, from which, and sometimes from information even more scanty, he compiled a series of speeches, of which the sentiments as well as the style were often his own. In his latter days he disapproved of this practice, and desisted from writing the speeches as soon as he found they were thought genuine.

In 1738 he m.ade his name at once known and highly respected among the eminent men of his time, by the publication of “London,” a poem in imitation of the third satire of Juvenal. The history of this publication is not uninteresting. Young authors did not then present themselves to the public without much cautious preparation. Johnson conveyed his poem to Cave as the production' of another, of one who was “under very disadvantageous circumstances of fortune;” and as some small encouragement to the printer, he not only offered to correct the press, but even to alter any stroke of satire which he might dislike. Cave, whose heart appears to more advantage in this than in some other of his transactions with authors, sent a present to Johnson for the use of his poor friend, and afterwards, it appears, recommended Dodsley as a purchaser. Dodsley had just begun business, and had speculated but on a few publications of no great consequence. He had, however, judgment enough to discern the merit of the poem now submitted to him, and bargained for the whole property. The sum Johnson received was ten guineas, and such were his circumstances, or such the state of literary property at that time, that he was fully content, and was ever ready to acknowledge Dodsley’s useful patronage. The poem was accordingly published in May 1738, and on the same morning with Pope’s satire of “Seventeen hundred and thirty-eight.” Johnson’s was so eagerly bought up, that a second edition became necessary in less than a week. *Pope behaved on this occasion with great liberality. He bestowed high praise on the “London,” and intimated that the author, whose name had not yet appeared, could not be long concealed. In this poem may be observed some of those political prejudices for which Johnson frequently contended afterwards. He thought proper to join in the popular clamour against the administration of sir Robert YValpole; but lived to reflect with more complacency on the conduct of that minister, when compared with some of his successors.

His “London” procured him fame, and Cave was not sorry to have engaged the services of a man whose talents had now the stamp of public approbation. Whether he had offers of patronage, or was thought a formidable enemy to the minister, is not certain; but, having leisure to calculate how little his labours were likely to produce, he soon began to wish for some establishment of a more permanent kind. With this view an offer was made to him of the mastership of the school of Appleby in Leicestershire, the salary of which was about sixty pounds, but the laws of the school required that the candidate should be a master of arts. The university of Oxford, when applied to, refused to grant this favour. Earl Gower was then solicited, in behalf of Johnson, by Pope, who knew him only as the author of “London.” His lordship accordingly wrote to Swift, soliciting a diploma from the university of Dublin, but, for what reason we are not told, this application, too, was unsuccessful. Mr. Murphy says, “There is reason to think, that Swift declined to meddle in the business; and to that circumstance Johnson’s known dislike of Swift has been often imputed.” That Swift declined to meddle in the business is not improbable, for it appears by his letters of this date (August 1738) that he was incapable of attenc(­ing to any business; but Johnson’s Life of Swift proves that his dislike had a more honourable foundation. About this time Johnson formed a design of studying the civil law, in order to practise in the Commons, yet this also was rendered impossible for want of a degree, and he was obliged to resume his labours in the Gentleman’s Magazine. The various articles which came from his pen are enumerated in chronological series by Mr. Boswell. It will be sufficient for our purpose to notice only his more important productions, or such as were of sufficient consequence to be published separately. In 1739, he wrote “A Complete Vindication of the Licensers of the Stage, from the malicious and scandalous aspersions of Mr. Brooke, author of Gustavus Vasa;” and a political tract entitled t( Marmor Norfolciense, or an Essay on an ancient prophetical inscription, in monkish rhyme, lately discovered near Lynne in Norfolk, by Probus Britannicus.“These pieces, it is almost needless to add, were ironical, a mode of writing in which our author was not eminently successful. Some notice has already been taken of” Gustavus Vasa“in the Life of Brooke. The” Marmor Norfolciense" was a severe attack on the Walpole administration, and on the reigning family; but whether it was not well understood, or when understood, considered as feeble, it certainly was not much attended to by the friends of government, nor procured to the author the reputation of a dangerous opponent. Sir John Hawkins indeed says that a prosecution was ordered, but of this no traces can be found in any of the public offices. One of his political enemies reprinted it in 1775, to shew what a change had been effected in his principles by a pension; but the publisher does not seem to have known what a very small change was really effected, and how little was necessary to render Johnson a loyal subject to his munificent sovereign, and a determined enemy of the popular politics of that time.

His next publication of any note was his “Life of Savage,” which he afterwards prefixed to that poet’s works when admitted into his collection. With Savage he had been for some time intimately acquainted, but how long is not known. They met at Cave’s house. Johnson admired his abilities, and while he sympathized with the very singular train of misfortunes which placed him among the indigent, was not less touched by his pride of spirit, and the lofty demeanour with which he treated those who neglected him. In all Savage’s virtues, there was much in common with Johnson, but his narrative shows with what nicety he could separate his virtues from his vices, and blame even firmness and independence when they degenerated into obstinacy and misanthropy. He has concealed none of Savage’s failings; and what appears of the exculpatory kind is merely an endeavour to present a just view of that unfortunate combination of circumstances, by which Savage was driven from the paths of decent and moral life; and to incite every reflecting person to put the important question “who made me to differ” This Life, of which two editions were very speedily sold, affords an extraordinary proof of the facility with which Johnson composed. He wrote forty-eight pages of the printed copy in the course of a day or night, for it is not very clear which. His biographer, who records this, enters at the same time into a long discussion intended to prove that Savage was not the* son of the countess of Macclesfield; but had this been possible, it would surely have been accomplished when the proof might have been rendered unanswerable.

In 1745 he published “Miscellaneous Observations on the Tragedy of Macbeth, with remarks on sir Thomas Hanmer’s edition of Shakspeare,” to which he affixed proposals fora new edition of that poet; and it is probable that he was now devoting his whole time to this undertaking, as we find a suspension of his periodical contributions during the years 1745 and 1746. It is perhaps too rash to conclude that he declined writing in the Magazine, because he would not join in the support of government during the rebellion in Scotland; but there are abundant proofs in Mr. Boswell’s Life, that his sentiments were favourable to that attempt. As to his plan of an edition of Shakspeare, he had many difficulties to encounter. Little notice was taken of his proposals, and Warburton was known to be engaged in a similar undertaking. Warburton, however, had the liberality to praise his “Observations on Macbeth,” as the production of a man of parts and genius; and Johnson never forgot the favour. Warburton, he said, praised him when praise was of value.

When he had in some measure recovered from the shock of Mrs. Johnsons death, he contributed several papers to the “Adventurer,” which was carried on by Dr. Hawkesworth and Dr. Warton. The profit of these papers he is said to have given to Dr. Bathurst, a physician of little practice, but a very amiable man, whom he highly respected. Mr. Boswell thinks he endeavoured to make them pass for Bathurst’s, which is highly improbable . In 1754 we find him approaching to the completion of his “Dictionary.” Lord Chesterfield, to whom he once looked up as to a liberal patron, had treated him with neglect, of which, after Johnson declined to pay court to such a man, he became sensible, and, as an effort at reconciliation, wrote two papers in the “World,” recommending the Dictionary, and soothing the author by some ingenious compliments. Had there been no previous offence, it is probable this end would have answered, and Johnson would have dedicated the work to him. He loved praise, and from lord Chesterfield, the Maecenas of the age, and the most elegant of noble writers, praise was at this time valuable. But Johnson never departed from exacting the just respect due to a man of letters, and was not to be appeased by the artifice of these protracted compliments. He could not even brook that his lordship should for a moment suppose him reconciled by his flattery, but immediately wrote that celebrated letter which has been so much admired as a model of dignified contempt. The allusion to the loss of his wife, and to his present situation, is exquisitely beautiful. “The notice which you have been pleased to take of my labours, had it been early, had been kind; but it has been delayed till I am indifferent, and cannot enjoy it till I Am Solitary, and cannot impart it till I am known, and do not want it.” Lord Chesterfield is said to have concealed his feelings on this occasion with his usual art, conscious, perhaps, that they were not to be envied.

In 1755 the degree of M. A. was conferred upon him by the university of Oxford, after which (in May) his “Dictionary” was published in two large volumes, folio. Of a work so well known it is unnecessary to say more in this place, than that after the lapse of half a century, neither envy has injured, nor industry rivalled its usefulness or popularity. In the following year he abridged his “ Dictionary into an octavo size, and engaged to superintend a monthly publication entitled” The Literary Magazine, or Universal Register.“To this he contributed a great many articles enumerated by Mr. Boswell, and several reviews of new books. The most celebrated of his reviews, and one of his most finished compositions, both in point of style, argument, and wit, was that of Soame Jenyns’s” Free Inquiry into the nature and origin of Evil.“This attracted so much notice that the bookseller was encouraged to publish it separately, and two editions were rapidly sold. The Magazine continued about two years, after which it was dropped for want of encouragement. He wrote also in 1756 some essays in the” Universal Visitor," another magazine, which lasted only a year. His friend Cave died in 1754, and, for whatever reason, Johnson’s regular contributions appear no more in the Gentleman’s Magazine. But he wrote a very elegant life of Cave, and was afterwards an occasional contributor. This, it would appear, was one of his worst years as to pecuniary matters. We find him, in the month of March, arrested for the sum of five pounds eighteen shillings and relieved by Mr. Richardson. His proposal for an edition of Shakspeare was again revived, and subscription tickets issued out, but it did not go to press for many years after.

But an end was now approaching to his pecuniary embarrassments. In 1762. while he was proceeding with his edition of Shakspeare, he was surprised by the information, that his present majesty had been pleased to grant him a pension of three hundred pounds a year, not, as has been invidiously asserted, in order to induce him to write for administration, but as the reward of his literary merit. Had it been otherwise, he had surely the strongest inducement to have exerted his talents in favour of lord Bute, by whose recommendation the pension was grained, and who at this time wanted much abler support than the hired writers of government could supply. But it is well known that he wrote no political tract for nearly eight years afterwards. He now took a house in Johnson’s court, Fleet-street, and allotted an apartment for Mrs. Williams. In 1765 he was introduced to the late Mr. Thrale and family, a circumstance which contributed much to alleviate the solicitudes of life, and furnished him with the enjoyment of an elegant table and elegant society. ' Here an apartment was fitted up for him, which he occupied when he pleased, and he accompanied the family in their various summer excursions, which tended to exhilarate his mind and render the return of his constitutional melancholy less frequent.

, an English botanist, of the seventeenth century, was born at Selby, in Yorkshire, and bred an apothecary in London. He afterwards kept a shop on Snow- hill, where, says Wood, by his unwearied pains and good natural parts, he attained to be the best herbalist of his age in England. He was first known to the public by a small piece under the title of “Iter in agrum Cantianum,” 1620; and “Ericetum Hamstedianum,” 16&2; which were the first local catalogues of plants published in England. He soon after acquired great credit by his new edition and emendation of Gerard’s “Herbal.” In the rebellion, “his zeal for the royal cause led him into the army, in which he greatly distinguished himself;- and the university of Oxford, in consideration of his merit, learning, and loyalty, conferred upon him the degree of M. D. May 9, 1643. In the army he had the rank of lieutenantcolonel to sir Marmaduke Rawdon, governor of Basinghouse. Near this place, in a skirmish with the enemy, in Sept. 1644, he received a shot in the shoulder, of which he died in a fortnight after, and, as there is reason to think, in the meridian of life. Besides the works abovementioned, and his improved edition of Gerard’s” Herbal,“which was twice printed in his life-time, in 1633 and in 1636, fol. he published in 1634,” Mercurius Botanicus, sive plantarum gratia suscepti Itineris, anno 1634, descriptio,“Lond. 8vo. This was the result of a journey, with some associates of the company of apothecaries, through Oxford, to Bath and Bristol, and back by Southampton, the Isle of Wight, and Guiklford, with the professed design to investigate rare plants. To this was added his small tract,” De Thermis Bathonicis,“with plans of the baths, and one of the city, which, to antiquaries, are now interesting. This was followed by a second part of his excursion,” Pars altera," which extends to Wales. He was among the earliest botanists who visited Wales and Snowdon, with the sole intention of discovering the rarities of that country in the vegetable kingdom, He also translated the works of Ambrose Parey, the celebrated French surgeon, published at London in 1643, and reprinted in 1678. Miller consecrated the name of Johnson by assigning it to a berry-bearing shrub of Carolina, belonging to the tetrandrous class, but it has not been retained in the LinnaDan system, where the plant is called callicarpa.

, an excellent classical scholar and editor, was born at Stadhampton, in Oxfordshire, and educated at KingVcollege, Cambridge, as Mr. Cole says, but according to others, at Magdalen -college, of which he was afterwards a fellow. He took his bachelor’s degree in 1688, and that of M. A. in 1692, after which he left the university, and married. He had also an Eton fellowship, and was assistant at the school. He was likewise usher of Ipswich school, and taught school once at Brentford, and in other places. Little else is known of his history, nor have we been able to ascertain the time of his death. Cole says his character is represented as having been dissolute, but he was an excellent scholar. He is best known as the editor of “Sophocles,” Oxon. and London, 1705, and 1746, 3 vols. He published also “Gratius, de Venatione, cum notis,” Lond. 1699, 8vi “Cebetis Tabula,” Lond. 1720, 8vi; “Novum Graecorum Epigrammatum delectus,” for the use of Eton school, repeatedly printed from 1699, &c. “The Iliad of Homer made English from the French version of Madame Dacier; revised and compared with the Greek” “Questiones Philosophic^ in usum juventiitis academics,” 173.5, 8vi, at that time a most useful manual and an edition of “PuffendoriF de Officio hominis et civis,” 4to. To these may be added, “An Essay on Moral Obligation, with a view towards settling the controversy concerning moral and positive duties,” Cambridge, 1731; “A letter to Mr. Chandler, in vindication of a passage in the bishop of London’s second Pastoral Letter,” 1734, p 8vo. In this last-mentioned year appeared the new edition of Stephens’s “Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,” of which our author was one of the editors.

, an eminent physician at Worcester, was the fourth son of John Johnstone, esq. of Galabank, one of the most ancient branches of the family of Johnstone of Johnstone: he was born at Annan in 1730, and received the rudiments of his classical education under the rev. Dr. Henry, author of the History of Great Britain. In the school of Edinburgh, under Whytt, Plummer, Monro, and Rutherford, he learned the science of medicine; and in Paris, under Ferrein and Rouelle, he studied anatomy and chemistry. In 1750, before he had completed twenty-one years, he took the degree of doctor of medicine, publishing a thesis “De Aeris factitii imperio in corpore humano,” which gained him much credit, and some valuable friends. The following year he seated himself at Kidderminster, in Worcestershire; which at that time, and some years afterwards, was subject to a putrid fever of such peculiar malignity, as to be called the Kidderminster fever. His name first became known by the successful treatment he adopted for the cure of this dreadful disorder. Instead of bleeding and purging, means then in common use, he recommended bark, wine, mineral acids, free ventilation of air, and the affusion of water and vinegar; and so prominent was his success, that he was immediately introduced into considerable practice. Of this fever, as it appeared in 1756, he published an account in 1758, which proves him to be the discoverer of the power of mineral acid vapours to correct or destroy putrid febrile contagion: He orders for this purpose, vitriolic acid to be poured upon common salt, in a convenient vessel, over a proper heat. It is not a little singular, that the same means should be recommended by the celebrated Guyton de Morveau for the same purpose, more than twenty years after they were published by Dr. Johnstone, and be then; cried up as a great discovery.

, an eminent naturalist, was born at Sambter, in Great Poland, in 1603: he received the greater part of his education in his own country; but in 1622, he came to England, and from thence he went to Scotland, where he studied with great diligence in the university of St. Andrew’s till 1625. He afterwards studied at Leyden and Cambridge. He undertook the education of the two sons of the count de Kurtzbach, and accompanied them to Holland. While he resided with his pupils at Leyden, he took his degree as doctor of physic; and when he went a third time to England, the same honour was conferred on him by the university of Cambridge. He died in June 1675, in the seventy-second year of his age. He is known in the literary world by a number of works in the different departments of natural history, particularly “Thaumatographia naturalis in classes decem divisa,” Amst. 1632, 12mo; “Historia naturalis de Piscibus et Cetis, &c.” Francfort, 1649, folio; “Historia naturalis de Quadrupedibus,” ibid, 1652, folio; “Hist. nat. de Insectibus,” ibid. 1653, folio “Hist. nat. de Avibus,” ibid, folio; “Syntagma Dendrologicum,” and “Dendrographia,” folio. He published also some historical works, and some on ethics, &c. enumerated in our authorities.

, an eminent French statesman, who flourished about 1260, was descended from one of the noblest and most ancient families at Champagne. He was seneschal, or high-steward, of Champagne, and one of the principal lords of the court of Louis IX. whom he attended in all his military expeditions; and was greatly beloved and esteemed for his valour, his wit, and the frankness of his manners. That monarch placed so much confidence in him, that all matters of justice, in the palace, were referred to his decision; and his majesty undertook nothing of importance without consulting him. He died about 1318, at not much less than ninety years of age. Joinviile is known as an author by his “History of St. Louis,” in French, which he composed in 130.5: a very curious and interesting work. The best edition is that of Du Gauge, in 1668, folio, with learned remarks. On per-, using this edition, however, it is easily seen, that the language of the Sire de Joinviile has been altered. But aa authentic ms. of the original was found in 1748, and was published without alteration, in 1761, by Melot, keeper of the royal library at Paris. This edition is also in folio.

, a dramatic writer, was a native of Drogheda, in Ireland, and was bred a bricklayer; but, having a natural inclination for the muses, pursued his devotions to them even during the labours of his mere mechanical avocations, and composing a line of brick and a line of verse alternately, his walls and poems rose in growth together, but not with equal degrees of durability. His turn, as is most generally the case with mean poets, or bards of humble origin, was panegyric. This procured him some friends; and, in 1745, when the earl of Chesterfield went over to Ireland as lord-lieutenant, Mr. Jones was recommended to the notice of that nobleman, who, delighted with the discovery of this mechanic muse, not only favoured him with his own notice and generous munificence, but also thought proper to transplant this opening flower into a warmer and more thriving climate. He brought him with him to England, recommended him to many of the nobility there, and not only procured him a large subscription for the publishing a collection of his “Poems,” but it is said, even took on himself the alteration and correction, of his tragedy, and also the care of prevailing on the managers of Covent-garden theatre to bring it on the stage. This nobleman also recommended him in the warmest manner to Colley Gibber, whose friendly and humane disposition induced him to shew him a thousand acts of friendship, and even made strong efforts by his interest at court to have secured to him the succession of the laurel after his death. With these favourable prospects it might have been expected that Jones would have passed through life with so much decency as to have ensured his own happiness, and done credit to the partiality of his friends; but this was not the case. “His temper,” says one, who seems to have known him, “was, in consequence of the dominion of his passions, uncertain and capricious; easily engaged, and easily disgusted; and, as ceconomy was a virtue which could never be taken into his catalogue, he appeared to think himself born rather to be supported by others than under a duty to secure to himself the profits which his writings and the munificence of his patrons from time to time afforded.” After experiencing many reverses of fortune, which an overbearing spirit, and an imprudence in regard to pecuniary concerns, consequently drew on him, he died in great want, in April 1770, in a garret belonging to the master of the Bedford coffee-house, by whose charity he had been some time supported, leaving an example to those of superior capacities and attainments, who, despising the common maxims of life, often feel the want of not pursuing them when it is too late. His principal performance, “The Earl of Essex,” appeared in 1753, and he also left a tragedy unfinished, called “The Cave of Idra,” which falling into the hands of Dr. Hiffernan, he enlarged it to five acts, and brought it out under the title of “The Heroine of the Cave.” His last publications were, “Merit” “The Relief;” and “Vectis, or the Isle of Wight,” poems but his poetical worth, though not contemptible, was far from being of the first-rate kind.

In respect to his character, we are assured, by one who knew him well, that his scientific abilities surpassed most of his age. He was a perfect master of the mathematics, and was not unacquainted with the two learned languages, Greek and Latin, especially the latter; neither was he without some turn for poetry . A copy of verses composed by him is published in the “Odcombian Banquet,” prefixed to Tom Coryate’s “Crudities,” in 1611, 4to. But his proper character was that of an architect, and the most eminent of his time on which account he is still generally styled the British Vitruvius the art of designing being little known in England till Mr. Jones, under the patronage of Charles I. and the earl of Arundel, brought it into use. This is the character given him by Mr. Webb, who was his heir; and who, being born in London, and bred in Merchant Taylors’-school, afterwards resided in Mr. Jones’s family, married his kinswoman, was instructed by him in mathematics and architecture, and designed by him for his successor in the office of surveyor-general of his majesty’s works, but was prevented by Sir John Denham. Mr. Webb published some other pieces besides his “Vindication of Stone-henge restored ;” and dying at Butleigh, his seat in Somersetshire, Oct. 24, 1672, was buried in that church. Walpole enumerates among his works which are still in part extant, the new quadrangle of St. John’s college, Oxfqrd the queen’s chapel at St. James’s the arcade of Oovent-garden and the church Gunnersbury, near Brentford Lincoln’s Inn Chapel, and one or two of the houses in Lincoln’s-inn-fields Coleshill in Berkshire, and Cobham hall in Kent; the Grange, in Hampshire; the queen’s house at Greeirwich, &c. Several other of his buildings may be seen in Campbell’s “Vitruvius Britannicus.” The principal of his designs were published by Mr. Kent in 1727, fol. as also some of his less designs in 1744, foL Others were published by Mr. Isaac Ware. Our artist left in ms. some curious notes upon Palladio’s “Architecture,” now in Worcester college, Oxford, some of which are inserted in an edition of Palladio, published at London, 1714, fol. by Mr. Leoni; which notes, he says, raise the value of the edition above all the preceding ones. His original drawings for Whitehall-palace are also in Worcester library.

, an English divine of some note for exciting a controversy respecting the Liturgy, was born in 1700, and is supposed to have been a native of Carmarthen. He was admitted of Worcester college, Oxford, where he took the degree of B. A. about 1721, and quitted the university in or before 1726, in which year he received priest’s orders at Buckden, from Dr. Reynolds, bishop of Lincoln. He had a curacy in that diocese, but in what partis not known. In 1741 he was resident at AbbotsRipton in Huntingdonshire, and soon after was presented to the vicarage of Alconbury, which he resigned in 1751 for the rectory of Boulne-Hurst in Bedfordshire. In 1755 he was vicar of Hitchin, and in 1759 accepted the curacy of Welwyn from Dr. Young, and continued there until 1765, when that celebrated poet died, and Mr. Jones was appointed one of his executors. He afterwards returned to Boulne-Hurst, and probably obtained no other preferment. He was killed by a fall from his horse in going to Abbots-Ripton, but in what year we have not been able to discover, although such a circumstance must have been known to his friends, who, however, have neglected to record it. After his death, many, if not all his manucripts, passed into the hands of the Rev. Thomas Dawson, M. D. a dissenting minister of Hackney, whence they passed to the dissenters’ library in Redcross-street. Some biographical notices which have appeared in the Gentleman’s Magazine were extracted from them. Mr. Nichols has given an extensive series of extracts from his literary correspondence with Dr. Birch, from which many particulars of his talents and character may be gleaned. His chief work was entitled “Free and Candid Disquisitions,” published in 1749. These contained many observations on the defects and improprieties in the liturgical forms of faith and worship of the established church, and proposals of amendments and alterations of such passages as were liable to reasonable objections. There was also a compilation of authorities taken from the writings of some eminent divines of the church of England, with a view to shew the necessity, or at least the expedience, of revising the liturgy, &c. Schemes like this have succeeded each other since the time of Dr. Clarke, but have never been attended with complete conviction, either of their necessity or expedience. The author’s name did not appear to this publication, and Mr. Blackburne, whom he consulted previous to publication, was dissatisfied with his timidity. He wrote, however, a pamphlet in defence of it, and other pamphlets appear pro and con; but the controversy was of no long duration. In 1765 he published “Catholic Faith and Practice,” and “A Letter to a Friend in the Country;” but with the subjects of these we are unacquainted.

In 1778, he published his translation of the “Orations of Iseeus,” in causes concerning the succession to property at Athens; with a prefatory discourse, notes historical and critical, and a commentary. This work he dedicated to earl Bathurst, who among all his illustrious friends, was as yet his only benefactor, by conferring on him the place of commissioner of bankrupts. The elegant style, profound research, and acute criticism, displayed in this translation, attracted the applause of every judge of classical learning. His next publication was a Latin ode to liberty, under the title of “Julii Mdesigoni ad Libertatem” a name formed by the transposition of the letters of* 6 Gulielmus Jonesius" In this ode, the author of which was soon known, he made a more ample acknowledgment of his political principles; and this, it is feared, had an unfavourable influence on the hopes which he was encouraged to entertain of promotion by the then administration. In 1780, there was a vacant seat on the bench of Fort William in Bengal, to svhicli the kindness of lord North Jed him to aspire; but, for some time, he had very little prospect of success. While this matter was in suspense, on the resignation of sir Roger Newdigate, he was advised to come forward as a candidate for the representation of the university of Oxford in parliament; but, finding that there was no chance of success, he declined the contest before the day of election. His principles on the great question of the American war were so avowedly hostile, not only to the measures pursued by administration, but to the sentiments entertained by the majority of the members of the university, that, although he might be disappointed, he could not be surprised at his failure, and accordingly appears to have resigned himself to his former pursuits with tranquil satisfaction.

Wood informs us that he succeeded Daniel as poet-laureat, in Oct. 1619, as Daniel did Spenser. Mr. Malone, however, has very clearly proved that neither Spenser nor Daniel enjoyed the office now known by that name. King James, by letters patent dated Februarys, 16,15-16, granted Jonson an annuity or yearly pension of one hundred marks during his life, “in consideration of the good and acceptable service heretofore done, and hereafter to be done, by the said B. J.” On the 23d of April, 1630, king Charles by letters patent, reciting* the former grant, and that it had been surrendered, was pleased “in consideration (says the patent) of the good and acceptable service done unto us and our father by the said B. J. and especially to encourage him to proceed in those services of his wit and pen, which we have enjoined unto him, and which we expect from him,” to augment his annuity of one hundred marks to one hundred pounds per annum during his life, payable from Christmas 1629. Charles at the same time granted him a tierce of Canary Spanish wine yearly during his life, out of his majesty’s cellars at Whitehall; of which there is no mention in the former grant. Soon after this pension was settled on him, he went to Scotland to visit his intimate friend and correspondent, Drummond of Hawthornden, to whom he imparted many particulars of his life and his opinions on the poets of his age. After his return from this visit, which appears to have afforded him much pleasure, he wrote a poem on the subject; but this, with several more of his productions, was destroyed by an, accidental fire, and he commemorated his loss in a poem entitled “An Execration upon Vulcan.”

, a painter of history and portraits, possessed of very superior abilities in his art, was born at Antwerp in 1594. He first studied with Adam Van Oort, whose daughter he married at an early period of his life but it was to Rubens he stood indebted for the principal part of his knowledge; though it is dubious whether he ever was admitted into the school of that master. Certain it is, however, that he more forcibly carried into effect his principles than any of his disciples, except Vandyke. It is said by Sandrart, that Rubens was jealous of him, but this assertion is generally thought to be unfounded; yet if so great a man were capable of that mean passion, certainly the talents of Jordaens might well excite it. He painted with almost incredible force and brilliancy. Neither Rubens nor Tintoretto, in that respect, excel him; his compositions are full of bustle, and designed with great truth, even grandeur of form. His defect (and it must be allowed that it is a great one, in an art whose principal end is to adorn, to improve, to please mankind) is grossness of subject and of form; not indecent, but vulgar, low common life. His power to give rotundity and relief to his figures, is amazing; and his execution is of the most masterly kind. The French have possessed themselves of many of his principal works; two are particularly noticeable in the gallery of the Louvre, the Flemish celebration. of Twelfth night, known by the appellation of “L'e Roi boit,” and Christ driving the money-changers from the temple. He was remarkable for the rapidity of his execution, and appears to have studied his figures and effects by candle-light, or in bright sun-shine. Having obtained great renown and success, he died in 1678.

, a celebrated capuchin, better known by the name of Father Joseph, was born November 4, 1577, at Paris, where his father, John de Clerc, had an office in the palace. After pursuing his studies with success, he visited Italy and Germany, entered into the army, and gave his family the most flattering expectations of his future fortune, when he suddenly renounced the world, and took the capuchins’ habit in 1599. He afterwards preached, and discharged the office of a missionary with reputation, was entrusted with the most important commissions by the court, and contributed much to the reformation of Fontevrauld. He sent capuchin missionaries into England, Canada, and Turkey, and was the intimate confidant of cardinal Richelieu, to whotn he was servilely devoted. Father Joseph founded the new order of Benedictine nuns of Calvary, for whom he procured establishments at Angers. Louis XIII. had nominated him to the cardinalate, but he died at Reuel, before he had received that dignity, December 18, 1638. The parliament attended his funeral in a body. The abbe Richard has published two lives of this capuchin, in one of which, in 2 vols. 12mo, he represents him as a saint; and in the other, entitled “Le veritable Pere Joseph,” as an artful politician, and courtier. This last is most esteemed, and probably most to be credited.

, the celebrated historian of the Jews, was born at Jerusalem, of parents who belonged to the illustrious Asmonean family, about the year 37. He soon discovered great acuteness and penetration, and made so quick a progress in the learning of the Jews, that he was occasionally consulted by the chief priests and rulers of the city, even at the age of sixteen. For the purpose of studying the history and tenets of the several Jewish sects, he became for three years a pupil of Banun, a hermit, who had acquired great fame for wisdom; and with him lived a recluse and abstemious life. After this he became of the sect of the Pharisees, of which he was a very great ornament. In the year 63, he went to Rome, where a Jew comedian, who happened to be in favour with Nero, served him much at court, by making him known to Poppaea, whose protection was very useful to him, and enabled him to procure liberty for some of his countrymen. Upon his return to his country, where he found all things in confusion, he had the command of some troops, and distinguished himself at the siege of Jotapata, which he defended seven weeks against Vespasian and Titus, but was taken prisoner. A short time after, Vespasian granted him his life, at the intercession of Titus, who had conceived a great esteem for him. He now visited Egypt, and took up his residence at Alexandria, where he doubtless studied the Grecian and Egyptian philosophy. His patron, Titus, carried him with him to the siege of Jerusalem, after the taking of which, he attended Titus to Rome, where Vespasian gave him the freedom of the city, and settled a pension upon him. At Rome he cultivated the Greek language, and began to write his History. He continued ta experience favour under Titus and Domitian, and lived beyond the 13th year of Domitian, when he was fifty-six for his books of “Antiquities” end there and after that period he composed his books against Apion. In what year he died is uncertain.

, one of the early promoters of the reformation, was a native of the county of Bedford, and educated at Peterhouse, in Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1513, and that of M. A. in 1517, and the same year was admitted a fellow. In 1527, being a strenuous advocate for the doctrines of the reformation, and an intimate friend of the celebrated Tindale, he was accused of heresy, which obliged him to resign his fellowship; and finding himself in danger from the continual persecutions of Wolsey, sir Thomas More, and Fisher, he retired to Germany, where he continued many years. He had a concern in the superintendance of Tindale’s Bible, printed at Antwerp in 1533, and is ranked by Ames as a printer himself; but, not content with corrections of the press, he took liberties with the translation, of which Tindale complained with justice, and Joy published an apology, Of these the reader will find ample information in Lewis. When Joy returned to England is not known, but it is said that he died in 1553, and was buried in his native country. Besides his translations of some parts of the Bible, he published, 1. “On the unity and schism of the ancient church,” Wesal, 1534, 8vo. 2. “The subversion of More V false foundation,” Embden, 1534, 12mo. 3. “Epistle to the prior of Newenham,” Strasburgh, 1527, 8vo. 4. “Commentary on Daniel, from Melancthon,” &c. Geneva, 1545, Lond. 1550, 8vo. 5. “A present consolation for the sufferance of persecution for righteousness,” 1544, 12mo: and other works, enumerated by Tanner.

, one of the reformers, son of John Judah, a German priest, was born in 1482, in Alsace. Some authors have reported that he was a converted Jew, but father Simon has proved that he neither was a Jew, nor of Jewish extraction, but the son of the above John Judah, or de Juda, who, according to the custom of those times, kept a concubine, by whom he had this Leo. He was educated at Slestadt, and thence in 1502, was sent to Basil to pursue his academical studies. Here he had for a fellowstudent, the afterwards much celebrated Zuinglius; and from him, who had at a very early age been shocked at the superstitious practices of the church of Rome, he received such impressions, as disposed him to embrace the reformed religion. Having obtained his degree of M. A. in 1512, he was appointed minister of a Swiss church, to the duties of which he applied himself with indefatigable zeal, preaching boldly in defence of the protestant religion. At length he was appointed by the magistrates and ecclesiastical assembly of Zurich, pastor of the church of St. Peter in that city, and became very celebrated as an advocate, as well from the press as the pulpit, of the reformed religion, for about eighteen years. At the desire of his brethren, he undertook a translation, from the Hebrew into Latin, of the whole Old Testament; but the magnitude of the work, and the closeness with which he applied to it, impaired his health; and before he had completed it, he fell a sacrifice to his labours, June 9, 1542, when he was about sixty years of age. The translation was finished by other hands, and was printed at Zurich in 1543, and two years afterwards it was reprinted at Paris by Robert Stephens, accompanying the Vulgate version, in adjoining columns, but without the name of the author of the new version. Judah was likewise the author of “Annotations upon Genesis and Exodus,” in which he was assisted by Xuinglius, and upon the four gospels, and the greater part of the epistles. He also composed a larger and smaller catechism, and translated some of Zuinglius’s works into Latin. The Spanish divines, notwithstanding the severity of the Inquisition, did not hesitate to reprint the Latin Bible of Leo Judah, with the notes ascribed to Vatabius, though some of them were from the pen of Calvin. Some particulars of Judah and of this translation, not generally known, may be found in a book written by a divine of Zurich, and printed in that city in 1616, entitled “Vindicise pro Bibliorum translatione Tigurina.”

Such were Julian’s efforts to subvert Christianity; and it cannot be denied, that the behaviour of many of the Christians at that time furnished pretence enough for most of the proceedings against them in the view of state-policy. Besides that they branded the state religion, and made a merit of affronting the public worship, it is well known that they were continually guilty of seditions; and did not scruple to assert, that nothing hindered them from engaging in open rebellion, but the improbability of succeeding in it for want of numbers. During these measures, his projects to support and reform paganism went hand in hand with his attempts to destroy Christianity. He wrote, and he preached, in defence of the Gentile superstition, and has himself acquainted us with the ill-success of his ministry at Beroea. Of his controversial writings, his answerer, Cyril, hath given us a large specimen, by which we see he was equally intent to recommend paganism, and to discredit revelation. In his reformation of the Geatile superstition, he endeavoured to hide the absurdity of its traditions by moral and philosophical allegories. These he found provided for him principally by philosophers of his own sect, the Platonists. For they, not without the assistance of the other sects, had, ever since the appearance of Christianity, been refining the theology of paganism, to oppose it to that of revelation; under pretence, that their new-invented allegories were the ancient spirit of the letter, which the first poetical divines had thus conveyed to posterity. He then attempted to correct the morals of the pagan priesthood, and regulate them on the practice of the first Christians. In his epistle to Arsacius, the chief priest of Galacia, he not only requires of them a personal behaviour void of offence, but that they reform their household on the same principle: he directs, that they who attend at the altar should abstain from the theatre, the tavern, and the exercise of all ignoble professions that in their private character they be meek and humble but that, in the acts and offices of religion, they assume a character conformable to the majesty of the immortal gods, whose ministers they are. And, above all, he recommends to them the virtues of chanty and benevolence. With regard to discipline and religious policy, he established readers in divinity planned an establishment for the order, and parts of the divine offices designed a regular and formal service, with days and hours of worship. He had also decreed to found hospitals for the poor, monasteries for the devout, and to prescribe and enjoin initiatory and expiatory sacrifices; with instructions for converts, and a course of penance for offenders; and, in all things, to imitate the church discipline at that time. In this way he endeavoured to destroy Christian principles, and at the same time to establish Christian practice.

He was married no less than four times, and by his third wife had a son, who is the subject of the next article. The titles of his works are sixty-four in number, among which are, “Commentaries” on the first three chapters of Genesis, the prophecies of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Jonah “Sacred Parallels” and “Notes” upon the book of Revelation “Hebrew Lexicon” “Grammar of the Hebrew Tongue” “Notes on Cicero’s Epistles to Atticns.” But what he is chiefly, and almost only, known for now, is his Latin version of the Hebrew text of the Bible, jointly "with Tremellius. He was a man of great learning and pious zeal, and his life by Melchior Adam affords many interesting particulars of him in both characters. In the account of his life written by himself, he relates that in his youth he was sed.uced into atheism, from which he represents himself as almost miraculously redeemed, and this appears. have made a lasting impression on him.

, born in 1684, and a physician of the mathematical sect, was educated in Trinity college, Cambridge, of which he was fellow in 1711. He was afterwards well known in London as an eminent physician; was physician to Guy’s hospital, and was, during several years, an active member and secretary of the royal society, and at the time of his death in 1750, president of the college of physicians. He distinguished himself by a series of ingenious essays, published in the Philosophical Transactions in 1718, 1719, &c. and afterwards printed collectively, in 1732, under the title of “Physico-Mathematical Dissertations,” in which mathematical science was applied with considerable acuteness to physiological subjects. These papers involved him in several controversies; first with Keill, in consequence of his calculations in regard to the force of the contractions of the heart, against which also Senac published some objections, which he answered. To Smith’s System of Optics, published in 1738, Jurin added “An Essay upon distinct and indistinct Vision,” in which he made subtle calculations of the changes necessary to be made in the figure of the eye to accommodate it to the different distances of objects. This paper was commented on by Robins, to whom Jurin wrote a reply. He had likewise controversies with Michelotti respecting the force of running water, and with the philosophers of the school of Leibnitz on living forces. He communicated to the royal society some experiments made with a view to determine the specific gravity of the human, blood, and he contributed much to the improvement of their meteorological observations. He was a warm partisan and an active defender of the practice of inoculation; and in several publications, giving an account of its success from 1723 to 1727, established its utility upon the true foundation of a comparison between the respective mortality of the casual and the inoculated small-pox. Dr. Jurin was also editor of Varenius’s Geography, 2 vols. 8vo, 1712, published at the request of sir Isaac Newton and Dr. Bentley. In “The Works of the Learned” for 1737 S 9, he carried on a controversy with Dr. Pemberton, in defence of Newton, and signed his papers “Philalethes Cantabrigiensis.”

, an ancient Latin historian, is known by his abridgment of the large work of Trogus Pompeius, which some think has occasioned the loss of the original; but it is much more probable that the neglect of the original occasioned the abridgment, as commonly happens in the decline of letters. Who Justin was, and when he lived, is altogether uncertain; but he is generally referred to the year 150, in the reign of Antoninus Pius. The abridgment comprises a history of the world from Ninus to Augustus Caesar; and is written with great purity and elegance, excepting here and there a word which savours of encroaching barbarism. It has long been employed as a school book, and is held in great estimation by foreign critics. La Mothe le Vayer thinks “his manner of writing so excellent as to be worthy the age of Augustus rather than that of the Antonines.” Justin has been illustrated by the best annotators, particularly Graevius; and there are numerous editions, of which the preference is given to those of Grsevius; of Hearne, 1705, 8vo of Gronovius, 1719, and 1760; of Fischer, 1757, &c.

It was, however, his misfortune, that the archbishop carried his esteem for him too far, and involved him in a scheme which Laud vainly fancied would raise the power and consequence of the church. This was no other than to place churchmen in high political stations;.and by way of experiment, he prevailed on the king to appoint bishop Juxon to the office of lord high treasurer, to which he was accordingly promoted in 1635. This office no churchman had held since the time of Henry VII. and although that was not such a very distant period, as not to afford something like a precedent to the promotion, yet the sentiments of the nation were now totally changed, and the noble families, from which such an officer was expected to have been chosen, were not more astonished than displeased to see the staff put into the hands of a clergyman scarcely known out of the verge of his college until called to the bishopric of London, which he had not filled two years. Notwithstanding this, it is allowed un all hands that Dr. Juxon conducted himself in such a manner, as to give no offence to any party; while, in the management of official concerns, he was so prudent and oeconomical, as considerably to benefit the exchequer. There cannot, indeed, be a greater proof of his good conduct than this, that when the republican party ransacked every office for causes of impeachment, sequestration, and death, they found nothing to object to bishop Juxon. He was not, however, made for the times; and when he saw the storm approaching which was to overset the whole edifice of church and state, he resigned his office May 17, 1641, just after the execution of the earl of Strafford, in consequence of the king’s passing the bill of attainder, contrary to Juxon’s express and earnest advice.

Some months after this, when the commonwealth was established, he was deprived of his bishopric, and retired to his private estate, the manor of Little Compton, in Gloucestershire, where he passed his time free from molestation, and in the occasional enjoyment of field sports, to which he was rather more addicted than became his rank in the church. At the restoration he was nominated archbishop of Canterbury, in Sept. 1660, and at the coronation placed the crown on the head of Charles II. He was a man of a liberal and princely spirit. During the short period that he enjoyed the archbishopric, he expended in building and repairing Lambeth and Croydon palaces, nearly 15,000l.; and augmented the vicarages, the great tithes of which were appropriated to his see, to the amount of 1103l. In the decline of life he was much afflicted with the stone, of which he at length died June 4, 1663, in his eighty-first year, and was interred with the greatest solemnity in the chapel of St. John’s college, Oxford, near the remains of archbishop Laud. To this college he had ever been a friend, and was at last a munificent benefactor, bequeathing 7000l. to be laid out in the increase of fellowships. His other charitable bequests amounted to 5000l. His contemporaries unite in praising his piety, learning, charity, moderation of temper, and steady loyalty. As a divine he has left little by which we can appreciate his merits. There is but one sermon of his extant entitled “The Subjects’ sorrow or Lamentations upon the death of Britain’s Josiah, king Charles,” 1649, 4to, and “Some considerations upon the Act of Uniformity; with an expedient for the satisfaction of the clergy within the province of Canterbury. By a Servant of the God of peace,” Lond. 1662, 4to. It is also said that he was the author of " A Catalogue of the most vendible books in England,' 1 a well-known 4to, printed in 1658, and signed W. London, in the dedication; but whoever peruses that dedication will perceive it cannot be from the pen of our prelate.

Soon after the accession of Alexander VI. he was nominated by that pontiff a canon of St. Peter’s, and dignified with the rank of a prelate. In 1495 he was sent as papal nuncio into the Milanese, to treat with the emperor-elect, Maximilian, on which embassy he obtained not only the approbation of the pope, but also the favour of the emperor, who soon after the return of Inghirami to Rome, transmitted to him from Inspruck an imperial diploma, by which, after enumerating his various accomplishments, and particularly his excellence in poetry and Latin literature, he created him count palatine and poet-laureat, and conceded to him the privilege of adding the Austrian eagle to his family arms. Nor was he less favoured by Julius II. who, besides appointing him librarian of the Vatican, conferred on him the important office of pontifical secretary, which he afterwards quitted for that of secretary to the college of cardinals. Leo X. also enriched him with many ecclesiastical preferments, and continued him in his office of librarian until his death, which was occasioned by an accident in the streets of Rome, Sept. 6, 1516, when he had not yet completed the forty- sixth year of his age. To this unfortunate event it is probably owing, that so few of his writings have reached the present times. From the testimony of his contemporaries, it is well known that he was the author of many books. Among these are enumerated a defence of Cicero a compendium of the history of Rome a commentary on the poetics of Horace and remarks on the comedies of Plautus; but these works were left at his death in an unfinished state, and have since been dispersed or lost. It has been supposed that he was the author of the additions to the “Aulularia” of Plautus, printed at Paris, 1513.

of Seville, was born at Carthagena, in Spain, the son of Severian, governor of that city, and was educated by his brother Leander, bishop of Seville, whom he succeeded in the year 601. St. Isidore was the oracle of Spain during thirty-five years, and died April 4, 636, leaving the following works: Twenty books of “Origines,” or Etymologies, Paris, 1601, fol., or Cologn, 1617, fol.; a “Chronicle” ending at the year 626, useful for the history of the Goths, Vandals, and Suevi “Commentaries” on the historical books of the Old Testament a treatise “on Ecclesiastical Writers” “a Rule for the Monastery of Honori;” a “Treatise on Ecclesiastical Offices,” containing many very important passages relating to Ecclesiastical Discipline, and in which he mentions seven prayers of the sacrifice. These prayers may still be found in the Mosarabic.mass, which is the ancient Spanish liturgy, and of which this saint is known to have been the principal author. The edition of the Missal, 1500, fol. and of the Breviary, 1502, fol. printed by cardinal Ximenes’ order, are very scarce; a Treatise on this Liturgy was printed at Rome, 1740, fol. The “Collection of Canons” attributed to St. Isidore, was not made by him. In the Rule above mentioned, he speaks of the monks as follows: “The monks shall every year at Pentecost make a declaration that they keep nothing as their own. A monk ought to work with his hands, according to the precept of St. Paul, and the example of the patriarchs. Every one ought to work, not only for his own maintenance, but for that of the poor. Those who are in health, and do not work, sin doubly, by idleness, and setting a bad example. Those who chuse to read without working, show that they receive no benefit from what they read, which commands them to work.” This Rule of St. Isidore prescribes about six hours work every day, and three hours reading. This Isidore is frequently ranked among musical writers. In his treatise on the divine offices, much curious information occurs concerning canto fermo, and music in general; but particularly its introduction into the church, the institution of the four tones by St. Ambrose, and the extension of that number to eight by St. Gregory. In treating of secular music, he has a short chapter on each of the following subjects of music, and its name of its invention its definition of its three constituent parts, harmonics, rhythm, and metre; of musical numbers; of the three-fold divisions of music; 1st, Of the harmonical division of music; 2dly, Of the organic or instrumental division; 3dly, Of the rhythmical division. These chapters are very short, and contain little more than compressed definitions of musical terms. In enumerating the seven liberal arts, cap. II. he ranks them in the following manner: grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy.

, was a Spanish Jesuit who on the suppression of his order, went to Italy, and settled at Bologna, where he died in 1783. He is known chiefly as the author of “The History of the famous preacher friar Gerund de Campazas; otherwise Gerund Zotes.” This work was written with a view to correct the abuses of the Spanish pulpit, by turning bad preachers into ridicule. The first volume of the original Spanish was published at Madrid, in 1758, under the assumed name of Francisco Lobon de Salazar, minister of the parish of St. Peter in Villagarcia. It was not only highly applauded by many of the learned in Spain, to whom it had been communicated in manuscript; but even the inquisitors encouraged the publication, and bore testimony in writing to its laudable design, believing that it would in a great measure produce a reformation. One of the revisers for the inquisition says, “It is one of those lucky expedients which indignation and hard necessity suggest, when the best means have proved ineffectual, and we are not to find fault if the dose of caustic and corrosive salts be somewhat too strong, as cancers are not to be cured with rose water.” Notwithstanding this approbation of the inquisition, some orders, particularly the Dominican and Mendicant, represented to the king that such a piece of merciless criticism would too much diminish the respect due to the clergy, and would render all religious orders ridiculous in the eyes of the common people, &c. These arguments, repeatedly urged by the friars, and supported by several of the bishops, obliged the council of Castile to take the book into their serious consideration, which produced a suppression of it. The author had a second volume ready; but, finding it impossible to print it in Spain, presented the copy to Mr. Baretti, by whose means both volumes were printed in English in 1771, with the omission of some tedious and irrelevant parts. In Spain this work was so highly approved, that the author was hailed as a second Cervantes, whom he certainly endeavours to copy; but it would be too liberal to allow him the merit of successful rivalship. Friar Gerund, however, is certainly a work of great humour, and must have appeared to much advantage in Spain, where the subjects of the satirQ are more common and obvious than in this country. Here it cannot be supposed to yield more than mere amusement, unless where it presents us with the customs of the common and middle ranks of Spain, and those are said to be faithfully depicted.

His inaugural dissertation, before noticed, and published at Leyden in 1694, is entitled “Decas observationum exoticarum.” Of this an unique copy is preserved in Sir James Smith’s library. The subjects on which it treats are, 1, the agnus Scythicus, or Borometz; 2, the bitterness of the Caspian sea; 3, of the native mumia, or bitumen, of Persia 4, of the torpedo, or electrical fish of the Persian gulph 5, of the drug called dragon’s blood, produced by the fruit of a palm 6, of the dracunculus of the Persians, a sort of worm proceeding from a tumour in the skin; 7, on the andrum, or endemic hydrocele of the Malabars; 8, on the perical, or ulcer of the feet among the same people; 9, on the cure of the colic amongst the Japanese by puncture with a needle; 10, on the moxa, or actual cautery, of the same people and the Chinese. These subjects are, as Haller observes, all of them probably treated more fully, in his “Amcenitates Exoticoe,” so often quoted by Linn Sb us for its botany, as well as other authors for its authentic details, relating to the history and manners of Persia, and other parts of the east. His History of Japan is well known by the English translation in folio, and is extremely valued for its accuracy and fidelity. It was published in 2 vols. fol. Lond. 1728. Kcempfer, we have remarked, was skilled in the use of the pencil; and some botanical drawings of his, made in Japan, are preserved in the British museum. Of these sir Joseph Banks, in 1791, liberally presented the learned world with 59 folio engravings at his own expence. Many of the plants are still undetermined by systematic botanists.

, a German writer, who has lately attained extraordinary fame in his own country as the inventor of a new system of philosophical opinions, which, however, are not very likely to reach posterity, was born April 22, 1724, in the suburbs of Konigsberg, in Prussia. His father, John George Kant, was a sadler, born at Memel, but originally descended from a Scotch family, who spelt their name with a C; but the philosopher, the subject of this article, in early life converted the C into a K, as being more conformable to German orthography. Immanuel, the second of six children, was indebted to his father for an example of the strictest integrity and the greatest industry; but he had neither time nor talent to be his instructor. From his mother, a woman of sound sense and ardent piety, he imbibed sentiments of warm and animated devotion, which left to the latest 'periods of his life the strongest and most reverential impressions of her memory on his mind. He received his first instructions in reading and writing at the charity-school in his parish; but soon gave such indications of ability and inclination to learn, as induced his uncle, a wealthy shoe- maker, to defray the expence of his farther education and studies. From school he proceeded to the college of Fridericianum. This was in 1740; and his first teacher was Martin Kautzen, to whom Kant was strongly attached, and who devoted himself with no less zeal to the instruction of his pupil, and contributed very greatly to the unfolding of his talents. His favourite study at the university was that of mathematics, and the branches of natural philosophy connected with them. On the completion of his studies, he accepted a situation as tutor in a clergyman’s family. In this, and in two other similar situations, he was not able to satisfy his mind that he did his duty so well as he ought; he was, according to his own account, too much occupied with acquiring knowledge to be able to communicate the rudiments of it to others. Having, however, acted as a tutor for nine years, he returned to Konigsberg, and maintained himself by private instruction. In 1746, when twenty-two years of age, he began his literary career with a small work, entitled “Thoughts on the estimation of the animal powers, with strictures on the proofs advanced by Leibnitz and other mathematicians on this point,” &c. In 1754 he acquired great reputation by a prize essay on the revolution of the earth round its axis; and the following year was admitted.to his degree of master of arts, and entered immediately upon the task of lecturing, which he performed for many years to crowded audiences, and published several works, the titles of which are now of little importance, compared to his new metaphysical system, the first traces of which are to be found in his inaugural dissertation, written in 1770, when he was appointed to a professor’s chair in the university of Konigsberg; the subject was, “De mundi sensibilis atque intelligibilis forma et principiis.” Seated now in the chair of metaphysics, his subsequent publications were almost entirely of this nature. He pursued this study with unremitting ardour, and entered into all the depths of metaphysical subtlety, in order, as we are told, “to unfold the rational powers of man, and deduce from thence his moral duties.” It was not till 178 J, that the full principles of his system appeared in his “Review of pure reason;” and the system it contains is commonly known under the name of the “Critical Philosophy.” As this work had been variously misrepresented, he published a second part in 1783, entitled “Prolegomena for future Metaphysics, which are to be considered as a science.” In 1786 he was appointed rector of the university, and was a second time called to the same office, in 1788; and in a few months he was advanced to be senior of the philosophical faculty. About 1798, he took leave of the public as an author, and soon after gave up all his official situations. During his latter years, his faculties were visibly decayed, in which state he died Feb. 12, 1804. The character of Kant is said to have been contemplated with universal respect and admiration, and during his life he received from the learned throughout Germany, marks of esteem bordering upon adoration. How far he deserved all this, is very questionable. His language is equally obscure, and his reasonings equally subtle with those of the commentators of Aristotle in the fifteenth century. The truth of this assertion will be denied by none who have endeavoured to make themselves masters of the works of Willich and Nitsch, two of his pupils; and the source of this obscurity seems to be sufficiently obvious. Besides employing a vast number of words of his own invention, derived from the Greek language, Kant uses expressions which have long been familiar to metaphysicians, in a sense different from that in which they are generally received; and we have no doubt that the difficulty of comprehending his philosophy has contributed, far more than any thing really valuaBle in it, to bring it into vogue, and raise the fame of the author. For the following analysis of his system we are indebted to one of our authorities, and we might perhaps deserve blame for the length of the article, if it did not appear necessary that some record should remain of a set of opinions that once threatened to usurp the place of all true philosophy as well as religion. The reader who studies for the practical improvement of his mind, will perceive at once, that it is the object of all such metaphysical projectors to render the world independent of revealed religion.

, a female artist, well known in this country, was born in 1740, at Coire, the capital of the Grisons, and received the elements of art from her father, who, on some surprising proofs of her early capacity, at the age of fourteen, conducted her to Milan, and, after some years’ practice there and elsewhere, to Rome, where her talents, charms, accomplishments, and graces, soon rendered her an object of general admiration: in 1764 she removed to Venice, and in the following year accompanied lady Wentworth, the wife of the British resident, to England. Here, enjoying royal favour, the arbitress of public taste, loved, esteemed, perhaps envied by artists, decorated with academic honours, opulent and happy, she sunk her own name in that of sir A. Zucchi, a Venetian artist, whom she married, and, after a residence of seventeen years, returned, through her native place, to Italy, and settled at Rome; where, after a new career of success, courted, employed, and rewarded, by rnonarchs, princes, and the most distinguished travellers, she died in 1807, of gradual decay, resigned, regretted, and honoured by splendid obsequies.

, a very agreeable English writer, was descended from sir George Hungerford, his great grandfather, by lady Frances Ducie, only daughter of Francis lord Seymour, baron of Trowbridge. He was born, as may be conjectured, about 1729 or 1730, and received his education at Kingston school, under the rev. Mr. Woodeson. From thence he went to Geneva, where he resided some years; and during his stay there, became acquainted with Voltaire, with whom he continued to correspond many years after he returned to England. After finishing the tour of Europe, he settled as a student in the Inner Temple, was called to the bar, and sometimes attended Westminster-hall; though he did not meet with encouragement enough to induce his perseverance in his profession, nor indeed does it seem probable that he had sufficient application for it. His first performance was “Ancient and Modern Rome,” a poem, written at Rome in 1755, and published in 1760, with merited applause. Soon after, he printed “A short Account of the Ancient History, present Government, and Laws of the Republic of Geneva.” This work he dedicated to his friend Voltaire. In 1762 he produced an “Epistle from lady Jane Gray to lord Guildford Dudley;” and in 1763 “The Alps,” a poem, which, for truth of description, elegance of versification, and vigour of imagination, greatly surpasses all his other poetical productions. In 1764 he produced “Netley Abbey;” and in 1765, the “Temple Student, an Epistle to a Friend,” in which he agreeably rallies his own want of application in the study of the law, and intimates his irresistible penchant for the belles lettres. In 1769 he married miss Hudson, of Wanlip, Leicestershire. Some months before which, he had published “Ferney,” an epistle to Mons. de Voltaire, in which he introduced a fine eulogium on Shakspeare, which procured him, soon after, the compliment, from the mayor and burgesses of Stratford, of a standish, mounted with silver, made out of the mulberry-tree planted by that illustrious bard. In 1773 he published “The Monument -in Arcadia,” a dramatic poem, founded on a well-known picture of Poussin; and in 1779, “Sketches from Nature, taken and coloured in a Journey to Margate,” 2 vols. 12 mo, an imitation of Sterne’s “Sentimental Journey” In 1781 he collected his poetical works in two volumes, with a dedication to Dr. Heberden, including a number of new pieces never before printed, and an excellent portrait of himself. Of these pieces, one was “The Helvetiad,” a fragment, written at Geneva, in 1756, He had intended to compose a poem of some length, on the subject of the emancipation of Switzerland from the oppression of the house of Austria, and had even settled the plan of his work, when he acquainted M. Voltaire with his intention, who advised him rather to employ his time on subjects more likely to interest the public attention “For,” said be, “should you devote yourself to the completion of your present design, the Swiss would be much obliged to you, without being able to read you, and the rest of the world would care little about the matter.” Whatever justice there was in this remark, Mr. K. relinquished his plan, and never resumed it afterwards. In 1781, he published an “Epistle to Angelica Kauffman.”

, an English lawyer, was the son of a lawyer of eminence, during Cromwell’s usurpation, and born in London, 1632. After a proper preparation, he was sent to Jesus -college, Oxford; whence he shortly removed to All-souls, of which he was made fellow by the parliament visitors in 1648. He took the degree of LL. B. in 1644; and, not long after, was admitted student at Gray’s inn, London, and became a barrister about 1658. The following year he went to Paris. After the restoration, he attended the King’s bench bar with extraordinary assiduity, continuing there as long as the court sat, in all the terms from 1661 to 1710, but was hardly ever known to be retained in any cause, or even to make a motion. He died suddenly, under the gate-way of Gray’s-inn, Aug. 1710, just as he was going to take the air in a coach. He was a man of incredible industry, for besides having published several books in his life-time, he left above 100 large folios, and more than 50 thick 4tos in ms. twenty of which are in the library of Gray’s-inn. Writing must have been his delight as well as employment, and became so habitual, that he not only reported the law cases at the King’s-bench, Westminster, but all the sermons at Gray’sinn chapel, both forenoon and afternoon, which amounted at last to above 4000. This was the mode of the times when he was young; and there is a mechanism in some natures, which makes them fond of proceeding as they have set out. He appears to have been a man of a singular turn in other respects, yet regular in his conduct, and very benevolent. The first work he undertook for the public was a new table, with many new references, to the statute-book, in 1674. 2. “An Explanation of the Laws against Recusants, &c. abridged,” 1631, 8vo. 3. “An Assistance to Justices of the Peace, for the easier Performance of their Duty,” 1683, folio; licensed by all the judges. 4. “Reports taken at the King’s-bench at Westminster, from the 12th to the 30th year of the Reign of our late Sovereign Lord King Charles II.” 1685, 3 vols. folio. This work was also licensed by the judges; but not being digested in th'e ordinary method of such collections, and having no table of references, it was not so well received as was expected; and the credit of it being once sunk, could not be retrieved, though the table was added in 1696. Indeed, as a reporter he does not stand high in the opinion of the profession. 5. Two essays, one “On Human Nature, or the Creation of Mankind;” the other, “On Human Actions.” These were pamphlets.

, an English prelate, born in 1713, was the younger son of Charles Keene, of Lynn, in Norfolk, esq. sometime mayor of that town, whose eldest son was sir Benjamin Keene, many years ambassador at Madrid, and K. B. who died Dec. 15, 1757, leaving his fortune to the subject of this article. Mr. Edmund Keene was first educated at the Charter-house, and afterwards at Caius college, Cambridge, where he was admitted in 1730. In 1738 he was appointed one of his majesty’s preachers at Whitehall chapel, and made fellow of Peterhouse in 1739. In 1740 he was made chaplain to a regiment of marines; and, in the same year, by the interest of his brother with $ir Robert Walpole, he succeeded bishop Butler in the valuable rectory of Stanhope, in the bishopric of Durham. In 1748, he preached and published a sermon at Newcastle, at the anniversary meeting of the society for the relief of the widows and orphans of clergymen; and, in December following, on the death of Dr. Whalley, he was chosen master of Peterhouse. In 1750, being vice-chancellor, under the auspices of the late duke of Newcastle, he verified the concluding paragraph in his speech on being elected, “Nee tardum nee timidum habebitis procancellarium,” by promoting, with great zeal and success, the regulations for improving the discipline of the university. This exposed him to much obloquy from the younger part of it, particularly in the famous “Fragment,” and “The Key to the Fragment,” by Dr. King, in which Dr. Keene was ridiculed (in prose) under the name of Mun, and in that of the “Capitade” (in verse), under that of Acutus, but at the same time his care and attention to the interests and character of the university justly endeared him to his great patron, so that in Jan. 1752, soon after the expirW tion of his office, which he held for two years, he was nominated to the see of Chester, vacant by the death of bishop Peploe, and was consecrated in Ely-house chapel on Palm Sunday, March 22. With this he held in commendam his rectory, and, for- two years, his headship, when he was succeeded, much to his satisfaction, by Dr. Law. In May following his lordship married the only daughter of Lancelot Andrews, esq. of Edmonton, formerly an eminent linen-draper in Cheapside, a lady of considerable fortune, and a descendant of the family of bishop Andrews. She died March 24, 1776. In 1770, on the death of bishop Mawson, he was translated to the valuable see of Ely. Receiving large dilapidations, his lordship procured an act of parliament for alienating the old palace in Holborn, and building a new one, by which the see has been freed from a great incumbrance, and obtained some increase also of annual revenue. “The bishopric,” it has been humorously observed, “though stripped of the strawberries which Shakspeare commemorates to have been so noted in Holborn, has, in lieu of -them, what may very well console a man not over-scrupulous in his appetites, viz. a new mansion of Portland stone in Dover-street, and a revenue of 5000l. a year, to keep it warm and in good repute.” Bishop Keene soon followed his friend Dr. Caryl, “whom,” he said, “he had long known and regarded, and who, though he had a few more years over him, he did not think would have gone before him.” He died July 6, 1781, in the sixty-eighth year of his age, and was buried at his own desire in bishop West’s chapel, Ely cathedral, where is a short epitaph drawn up by himself. “Bishop Keene,” it is observed by bishop Newton, “succeeded to Ely, to his heart’s desire, and happy it was that he did so; for, few could have borne the expence, or have displayed the taste and magnificence, which he has done, having a liberal fortune as well as a liberal mind, and really meriting the appellation of a builder of palaces. For, he built a new palace at Chester; he built a new Fly-house in London and, in a great measure, a new palace at Ely leaving onjy the outer walls standing, he formed a new inside, and thereby converted it into one of the best episcopal houses, if not the very best, in the kingdom. He had indeed received the money which arose from the sale of old Elyhouse, and also what was paid by the executors of his predecessor for dilapidations, which, all together, amounted to about 11,000l. but yet he expended some thousands more of his own upon the buildings, and new houses require new furniture.” It is chiefly on account of this taste and munificence that he deserves notice, as he is not known in the literary world, unless by five occasional sermons of no distinguished merit.

The Turks at this time invaded the Ukrain on the side of Russia, and the empress sent two numerous armies to repel the invaders; one of which marched for Oczakow, under the command of count Munich, which place was invested and taken by the valour and conduct of Keith, to whom the success was chiefly attributed. In the war with the Swedes, he had a command under marshal Lacey, at the battle of Willmanstrand; which he gained by fetching a compass about a hill, and attacking the Swedes in flunk, at a time when victory seemed to declare in their favour. He likewise, by a stratagem, retook from them the isles of Aland in the Baltic, which they had seized by treachery. Afterwards he had no inconsiderable share in the bringing about that extraordinary revolution, which raised the empress Elizabeth, the daughter of Peter, to the throne. He served the Russians in peace also by several embassies: but, finding the honours of that country no better than a splendid servitude, and not meeting with those rewards which his long and faithful services deserved, he left that court for that of Prussia, where merit was better known, and better rewarded.

, a pious and learned regular canon, and one of the most eminent men in the fifteenth century, was born 1380, at Kemp, a village in the diocese oi Cologn, from whence he took his name. He studied at Deventer, in the community of poor scholars established by Gerard Groot, made great progress both in learning and piety, and in 1399 entered the monastery of regular canons of Mount St. Agnes, near Zwol, where his brother was prior. Thomas a Kempis distinguished himself in this situation by his eminent piety, his respect for his superiors, and his charity towards his brethren; and died in great reputation for sanctity, July 25, 1471, aged ninetyone. He left a great number of religious works, which breathe a spirit of tender, solid, and enlightened piety, of which a collection was printed at Antwerp, 1615, 3 torn. 8vo. The abbe de Bellegarde translated part of his works into French, under the title of “Suite du Livre de I'lmitation,” 24mo, and Pere Valette, under that of “Elevation a J. C. sur sa vie et ses mysteries,” 12mo. The learned Joducus Badius Ascensius was the first who attributed the celebrated book on the Imitation of Jesus Christ to Thomas a Kempis, in which he has been followed by Francis de Tob, a regular canon, who in favour of this opinion quotes the Mss. which may still be seen in Thomas a Kempis’s own hand. On the other hand, Pere Possevin, a Jesuit, was the first who attributed this work to the abbot John Gersen or Gessen, in his “Apparatus sacer,” which opinion has been adopted by the Benedictines of the congregations de St. Maur. M. Vallart, in his edition of the “Imitation,” supposes it to be more ancient than Thomas a Kempis, and that it was written by Gersen. Those who wish to be acquainted with the disputes which arose on this subject between the Benedictines, who are for Gersen, and the regular canons of the congregation of St. Genevieve, who are for Thomas a Kempis, may consult the curious account of them which Dom. Vincent Thuilier nas prefixed to torn. 1. of Mabillon’s and Ruinart’s Posthumous Works, or Dupin’s History, who has also entered deeply into the controversy. The first Latin edition is 1492, 12mo, Gothic. There was at that time an old French translation under the title of ‘L’lnternelle Consolation,“the language of which appears as old as Thomas a Kempis, which has raised a doubt whether the book was originally written in Latin or French. The abbe” Langlet has taken a chapter from this ancient translation, which is not in the Latin versions. Dr. Stanhope translated it into English, and there are numerous editions of it in every known language.

In January 1775, he commenced his “London Review,” and along with his own name, placed in the title those of H. Reimarus, J. U. D. R. Williams, M D. E. Warner, A. M. and the rev. S. T. Maty. Except Reimarus, we believe it will be difficult to find these names in any list of “gentlemen of the first rank in the world of letters.” Review, however, went on for some years, and contains, from the pen of its chief author, repeated attacks upon his brethren in every profession. It continued a few months after his death, and then sunk into oblivion. In the same year 1775, he began a translation of Buffon, to be published in numbers, and in 1778 a translation of Voltaire’s works. His last dramatic attempt was “The Lady of the Manor,” a comic opera, taken from Johnson’s “Country Lasses;” and his last original publications, both of some degree of merit, were “Observations on the marriage contract;” and “Observations on Jenyns’s View of the Internal Evidence, &c.” This last had formed an article in his Review, whence other articles of equal ability might be selected, were they not all contaminated by a style vituperative and malignant. In his latter days, his constitution was so much injured by inebriety, that he generally wrote with a bottle of brandy at his elbow, which at length terminated his career June 10, 1779, less lamented than perhaps any person known in the literary world, yet possessed of talents which, under a steady and virtuous direction, might have procured him an honourable place among the authors of his time.

, lord chief justice of the King’s Bench, was born at Gredington, in Flintshire, 1733 and was the eldest surviving son of Lloyd Kenyon, esq. originally of Bryno in the same county, and one of the younger sons of the ancient family of Kenyon of Peele in Lancashire. He received the elementary part of his education at Ruthen in Denbighshire, whence he was taken, at an early age, and articled to Mr. W. J. Tomlinson, an eminent attorney at Nantwich, in Cheshire. On the expiration of his articles, Mr. Kenyon determined to enter into a line which afforded a more ample scope to his industry and talents, and, accordingly, became a member of the Society of Lincoln’s Inn, in Trinity Term 1754, and after a sedulous application to the requisite studies, was called to the bar in Hilary Term 1761. In the early part of his professional career, his advancement was but slow; he was unassisted by those means which powerful connexion and interest afford. The branch of his profession to which he chiefly applied himself, that of conveyancing, was not calculated to bring him forward into public notice; but the sterling merit of genuine abilities and persevering industry were not to be overlooked. He rose gradually into practice; few opinions at the bar, at the time, carried more weight and authority, and he was frequently recurred to as an advocate. In 1773, he formed a matrimonial connexion with his relative, Mary, the third daughter of George Kenyon, of Peele and, not long after, contracted an intimacy with Mr. afterwards lord Thurlow and chancellor. About this period too, and for some years after, his practice in the Courtof Chancery was very extensive and of the most lucrative kind, by which, as well as in the other branches of his profession, he acquired a very considerable property. In 1780, a circumstance occurred which not a little contributed to establish his reputation as an advocate and a public speaker, his being employed as leading counsel for the defence of the late lord George Gordon, on a charge of high treason; on this interesting occasion his second was Mr. now lord Erskine, who on that day distinguished himself in such a manner as in a great degree laid the foundation of his future fame. In April 1782, soon after the accession of the Rockingham party to ministerial power, Mr. Kenyon was, without serving the intermediate office of solfcitor, appointed to the important situation of attorney-general, and, at the same time, chief justice of Chester; in the former office he succeeded the late James Wallis, esq. The circumstance of his direct promotion to the office of attorney-general was regarded as a singular instance; this however is erroneous, similar promotions have before occurred, and the case of sir Edward Law (the late attorney-general, now lord Ellenborough, his successor as lord chief justice), is a recent instance. In parliament Mr. Kenyon took a decided part in politics, warmly attaching himself to the party of Mr. Pitt; and distinguishing himself not a little by his speeches on the noted affair of the coalition, Mr. Fox’s India-bill, &c. In March 1784 he was appointed master of the rolls, an office of high judicial dignity, and generally leading to still higher legal honours; yet its emoluments fell very short of those which he necessarily relinquished by discontinuing his professional pursuits as a counsel. About this time he was created a baronet. In this situation sir Lloyd Kenyon continued till the latter end of May 1788, when, on the resignation of the venerable earl of Mansfield, who, for the long interval of thirty-two years, had held the honourable and very important office of chief justice of the court of KingVbench, he was appointed to succeed him, and at the same time was elevated to the peerage, by the title of lord Kenyon, baron of Gredington in the county of Flint. He was now fixed in a situation, which, though not nominally the highest, is perhaps the most important office in the administration of the law of this country; and lord Kenyon furnished an instance nearly as striking as that of the illustrious Hardwicke, that the profession of the law is that which, of all others, affords the fairest opportunies for the exertion of genuine talents and persevering industry; whether the object be the gratification of ambition in the attainment of the highest honours in the state, or the possession of abundant wealth. His conduct in those arduous and important situations attracted and fixed the applauses and gratitude of his countrymen. He was distinguished for his laudable, firm, and persevering exertions to keep the channels of the law clear and unpolluted by low and sordid practices, which were particularly exemplified in the vigilant and salutary exercise of his authority over the attorneys of his own court, the utility of which has been experienced in a very considerable degree. Nor was he less distinguished for his zeal in the cause of morality and virtue, which most conspicuously appeared in his conduct with respect to cases of adultery and seduction. On these occasions neither rank, wealth, nor station, could shield deliquency from the well-merited censure and rebuke of offended justice and morality. Though much, unhappily, remains to be done, yet his lordship’s exertions, combined with those of some of the most virtuous and exalted characters of the upper House of Parliament, have contributed greatly, notwithstanding the acknowledged inadequacy and imperfection of the law in these respects, to restrain the fashionable and prevailing vices alluded to. What likewise redounded to the honour of his lordship’s magisterial character, was the strictness, not to say severity, with which he administered the justice of the law against the pernicious tribe of gamblers of every description, who have for some years infested the metropolis. On these occasions, as well as in those above mentioned, the conduct of this truly virtuous judge was such as incontrovertibly shewed that “the law is no respecter of persons;” and his persevering exertions to restrain the destructive vice of gaming have been attended with no inconsiderable degree of success. Nor should we omit to mention the very laudable spirit and firmness, which on all occasions he evinced in maintaining due order and decorum in his court. It was justly said of him, that though he might not equal in talents or eloquence the pre-eminent character whom he succeeded on the bench of justice; nevertheless, he possessed qualities mor*e appropriate to, and knowledge more connected with, the important office which he held. Profound in legal erudition, patient in judicial discrimination, and of the most determined integrity, he added no common lustre to his exalted station. He did not sacrifice his official to his parliamentary character; the sphere of his particular duty was the great scene of his activity, as of his honour; and though, as a lord of parliament, he never lessened his character, it was as a judge that he aggrandized it. In private life, the character of lord Kenyon was amiable and praise- worthy in the highest degree no man could excel him in the relations of husband and father in the former he may be considered as a pattern of conjugal virtue. In his mode of living he was remarkably temperate and regular; while the gratuitous assistance in his professional capacity, which it was well known he had often afforded to necessitous and injured individuals, is a proof that a fondness for money was not a prevailing trait in his character. He died at Bath, April 2, 1802, supposed to be worth 300,000l. all acquired by his own professional exertions, and a rigid spirit of economy. Lord Kenyon had issue by his lady, three sons; Lloyd, born in 1775, whom his father appointed to the office of filazer of the Court of King’s-bench; but who died in 1800. The manner in which his lordship was affected by this melancholy event, is supposed, in some degree, to have accelerated his own dissolution. Secondly, George, the present lord Kenyon, born in 1776. His lordship was appointed by his late father to the very lucrative situation of joint chief clerk of the Court of King’s-bench, on the demise of the late earl of Mansfield, better known as lord viscount Stormont, and joined in the patent with the late John Waye, esq. And, thirdly, the hon. Thomas Kenyon, born in 1780,

To this sagacious philosopher we owe the first discovery of the great laws of the planetary motions, viz. that the planets describe areas that are always proportional to the times; that they move in elliptical orbits, having the sun. in one focus and that the squares of their periodic times, are proportional to the cubes of their mean distances which are now generally known by the name of Kepler’s Laws.

But, now that the laws of motion are better known than in Kepler’s time, it is easy to shew the fallacy of every part of this account of the planetary motions. The planet does not endeavour to stop in consequence of its inertia, but to persevere in its motion in a right line. An attractive force makes it descend from the aphelion to the perihelion in a curve concave towards the sun: but the repelling force, which he supposed to begin at the perihelion, would cause it to ascend in a figure convex towards the sun. It was shown afterwards, from sir Isaac Newton, how an attraction or gravitation towards the sun, alone produces the effects, which, according to Kepler, required both an attractive and repelling force; and that the virtue which he ascribed to the sun’s image, propagated into the planetary regions, is unnecessary, as it could be of no use for this effect, though it were admitted. For now his own prophecy, with which he concludes his book, is verified; where he tells us, that “the discovery of such things was reserved for the succeeding ages, when the author of nature would be pleased to reveal these mysteries.”

, a celebrated English admiral, the second son of William earl of Albemarle, was born April 2, 1725. He entered the sea-service while he was young, accompanied commodore Anson round the world, and by the zeal which he manifested in his profession, was raised to the first honours which it had to bestow. The most important occurrence in his life took place in 1778, when he had the command of the channel fleet, to which he had been appointed at the personal and urgent solicitation of the king, and which he readily accepted, though he could not help observing, that “his forty years’ services were not marked by any favour from the crown, except that of its confidence in the time of danger.” On the 12th of July he fell in with the French fleet, under count d'Orvilliers, off Ushant: an engagement ensued, which, though partial, was very warm while it lasted. It was necessary to take a short time to repair the damages: which being done, the admiral made proper signals for the van and rear division to take their respective stations. This order was obeyed with great alacrity by sir Robert Harland of the van, but admiral sir Hugh Palliser of the rear took no notice of the signal, and refused to join his commander, till night prevented a renewal of the battle. The French, taking advantage of the darkness, escaped to their own. coast. Admiral Keppel, willing to excuse sir Hugh Palliser, at least to screen him from public resentment, wrote home such a letter as seemed even to imply great impropriety of behaviour in the commander himself. The conduct, however, of the rear-admiral was attacked in the public papers: he demanded of his commander a formal disavowal of the charges brought against him, which Keppel indignantly refused. He immediately exhibited articles of accusation against the commander-in-chief, for misconduct and neglect of duty, although he had a second time sailed with him, and had never uttered a syllable to his prejudice. The lords of the admiralty instantly fixed a day for the trial of admiral Keppel, who was most honourfcbly acquitted, and received the thanks of both houses of parliament for his services. Palliser was next tried, and escaped with a censure only, but the resentment of the public was so great, that he was obliged to resign several offices which he held under government, and to vacate his seat in parliament. The acquittal of Keppel was celebrated with the most magnificent illuminations, and other marks of rejoicing which had never been known at that time in this country; and the houses of lord Sandwich, first lord of the admiralty, and sir Hugh Palliser, were with difficulty saved from destruction; the windows and much of the furniture being demolished by the fury of the populace. In 1782, admiral Keppel was raised to a peerage, with the titles of viscount Keppel baron Elden: he was afterwards, at two different periods, appointed first lord of the admiralty. He died Oct. 3, 1786, unmarried, and of course his titles became extinct He was a thorough seaman, and a man of great integrity and humanity.

, deserves mention as having been the author of a book on “The Elements of Algebra,” one of the clearest and most comprehensive of the kind in any language but nothing is known of his personal history. He also published an improved edition of “Wingate’s Arithmetic” and a “Dictionarium Anglo-Britannicum, or General English Dictionary.” He lived in the reign of Charles the Second; and a head of him, by Faithorne, finely engraved, is prefixed to his algebra.

, an English divine, remarkable for piety and learning, was born at North-Allerton in Yorkshire, March 10, 1653. He was grounded in classical learning in the free-school of that town, and sent to St. Edmund Hall, Oxford, in 1670. Five years after, he was chosen fellow of Lincoln college, through the interest of Mr. George Hickes, who was fellow of the same, where he became eminent as a tutor. He entered into orders as soon as he was of sufficient age, and distinguished himself early by an uncommon knowledge in divinity. He was very young when he wrote his celebrated book, entitled “Measures of Christian Obedience:” he composed it in 1678, though it was not published till 1681. Dr. Hickes, to whom he submitted it for correction, advised him to dedicate it to bishop Compton, intending, by that means, to have him settled in London and, accordingly, it came out at first with a dedication to his lordship but when that prelate appeared in arms against James II. Kettlewell gave orders to have the dedication razed out of the copies unsold, and also to have it omitted in the subsequent editions. In the mean time, this book occasioned him to be so much taken notice of, that the old countess of Bedford, mother of the unfortunate William lord Russel, appointed him, on that account, to be one of her domestic chaplains; and a greater favour he received, upon the same consideration, from Simon lord Digby, who presented him, July 1682, to the vicarage of Coleshill in Warwickshire. After he had continued above seven years at this place, a great alteration happened in his condition and circumstances; for, at the Revolution, being one of those conscientious men who refused to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to king William and queen Mary, he was deprived of his living in 1690, However, he did not spend the remainder of his days in indolence; but, retiring to London with his wife, whom he had married in 1685, he continued to write and publish books, as he had done during his residence in the country. There, amongst other learned men, he was particularly happy in the friendship of Mr. Nelson, with whom he concerted the “Model of a fund of charity for the needy suffering, that is, the nonjuring, clergy:” but being naturally of a tender and delicate frame of body, and inclined to a consumption, he fell into that distemper in his 42d year, and died April 12, 1695, at his lodgings in Gray’s-inn Jane. He was buried, three days after, in the same grave where archbishop Laud was before interred, in the parish church of Allhallows- Barking, where a neat marble monument is erected to his memory. Mr. Nelson, who must needs have known him very well, has given this great and noble character of him, in a preface to his “Five Discourses/' &c. a piece printed after his decease” He was learned without pride wise and judicious without cunning; he served at the altar without either covetousness or ambition he was devout without affectation sincerely religious without moroseness courteous and affable without flattery or mean compliances just without rigour charitable without vanity and heartily zealous for the interest of religion without faction.“His works were collected and printed in 1718, in two volumes, folio they are all upon religious subjects, unless his” Measures of Christian Obedience,“and some tracts upon” New Oaths,“and the” Duty of Allegiance," &c. should be rather considered as of a political nature.

At the end of this year, 1669, he became the steward, auditor, and secretary of the lady dowager Gerard, of Gerard’s Bromley, relict of Charles, and mother of Digby, lord Gerard. He resided with her ladyship’s father George Digby of Sandon, in Staffordshire, esq. until August, 1672. This task was somewhat arduous, for his predecessor, Mr. Chaunce, kept all his accounts, and other matters of moment, in characters which he had to decipher; and besides he drew and painted many things for lady Gerard, whilst inher service. From Staffordshire he went to London, where he renewed his acquaintance at the Heralds’ -college, paying a suitable attention to his old master, Dugdale. Here he became known to Hollar, the celebrated engraver. He recommended him to Mr. Ogilvy, to manage his undertakings, who having his majesty’s license to print whatever he composed or translated, kept a press in his house, and at that time was printing sir Peter Leicester’s “Antiquities of Chester.” Mr. King made his first attempt in etching some ancient seals in that work. Giving satisfaction he was employed in etching lome sculpts in Mr. Dugdale’s Esop (not the antiquary), fvhich was reduced from the folio to 8vo size, and several of Ogilvy’s “History of Asia,” vol. I. translated from De Meurs’ impression at Amsterdam. He also assisted in his new “Britannia,” travelling into Essex with the surveyor, Mr. Falgate, a native of that county. They in the middle of the winter, 1672, a very inclement one, took the ichnography of Ipswich, in Suffolk, and Maiden, in Essex, which were afterwards very curiously finished, and sent to those two places. He assisted and superintended the map of London, which Hollar engraved. He contrived and managed a lottery of books, to repay Mr. Ogilvy’s great expences in these concerns, and a lesser one of books for Bristol fair, which turned to good advantage, Mr. King attending there. He then engaged in Ogilvy’s “Book of” Roads," superintending the whole, digesting the notes, directing the engravings, three or four of which he executed with his own hand, which was the first time he attempted handling the graver. Mr. Ogilvy was so sensible of his merit and fidelity, that he treated him with peculiar; attention on all occasions, and allowed him a music-master to teach him to play upon the violin, and offered to renew his place of cosmographer to the king, and put his name in jointly, or in reversion; this he declined, but accepted the offer to undertake, on his own account, the map of Westminster, which he completed in 1675, on the scale of 100 feet to an inch. He employed himself also in engraving the letter-work of various maps. He laid out some of the principal streets of the metropolis, particularly those of Soho; and most of the first building articles, or leases, were drawn up by him. At length his connexions with the heralds procured him to be created Rouge-dragon in 1677, but the fees of this office being small, he found it expedient to continue his employment of engraving and herald-painting. He designed a map of Staffordshire; yet through sir Henry St. George, Norroy, and his old master, Dugdale, Garter, the duties of the office took a good part of his time. Being very useful to these kings at arms, they pressed him to remove to the college, which he did at Lady-day, 1680, Diigdale accommodating him with a chamber, and some other conveniences, and St. George with a kitchen. He assisted St. George in his visitations, as one of his deputies, in 1681 and 1682 and, upon the death of the duke of Norfolk, his successor nominated him registrar in the room of Mr. Devenish, York; although opposed by the college as without a precedent. He was also trusted and consulted about the burial of Charles II. the proclaiming and the coronation of his successor, and took a part in the magnificent publication of the latter ceremony with Mr. Sandford, Lancaster herald. The Revolution soon following, he became extremely useful in the ceremonial of William and Mary’s coronation. Mr. Sandford resigning his tajbard to him^ he became, for three or four months, Lancaster and Rouge-dragon, the patent not passing until-the following July.

From this time his merit was so well known, and so entirely acknowledged, that he bore a deserved sway in the college, such as perhaps no other herald of his standing ever did; for being skilled in the languages, especially the Latin and French, and being intimately conversant in whatever related to the order of the Garter, he was fixed upon to be deputy to sir Thomas St. George, Garter, totake the insignia to invest the elector of Brandenburgh: and was afterwards frequently employed in similar commissions and foreign installations.

Early in 1701, Dr. King was recalled to the busy scenes of life. His friend James the third earl of Anglesea (who had succeeded to that title April 1, 1690), married Oct. 28, 1699, the lady Catharine Darnley, natural daughter to king James II. by Catharine countess of Dorchester, and had by her one daughter. After living together little more than a year, a dispute arose between them, which ended in a separation. Lord Anglesea solicited the assistance of Dr. King; and the force of friendship prevailed over his natural aversion to the wrangling of the bar. He complied with the request took abundant pains for his old friend, more than he was ever known to do and distinguished himself so in the earl’s defence, as shewed him to have had abilities in his profession equal to any occasion that might call for them, and effectually established his reputation in the character of a civilian, as he had already done in that of a polite writer.

He was the author of 1. “Miltoni epistola ad Pollionem” (lord Polwarth). 2. << Sermo Pedestris.“3.” Scamnum, ecloga.“4.” Templum libertatis,“in three books. 5.” Tres Oratiunculae.“6.” Epistola objurgatoria.“7.” Antoriietti ducis Corscorum epistola ad Corscos de rege eligendo.“8.” Eulogium Jacci Eionensis.“9.” Aviti epistola ad Perillam, virginem Scotam,“&c. 10.” Oratiuncula habita in domo convocationis Oxon. cum epistola dedicatoria,“1757, and” Epitaphium Richardi Nash." Besides these, he published the first five volumes of Dr. South’s sermons. He was known and esteemed by the first men of his time for wit and learning; and must be allowed to have been a polite scholar, an excellent orator, and an elegant and easy writer, both in Latin and English. He died Dec. 30, 1763, having sketched his own character in an elegant epitaph, in which, while he acknowledges his failings, he claims the praise of benevolence, temperance, and fortitude. This epitaph was to be engraved on a silver case, in which he directed his heart should be pn^erved in some convenient part of St. Mary Hall. He was buried in Ealing church, but the inscription is on a marble tablet in the chapel of St. Mary-hall. There is a striking likeness of Dr. King in Worlidge’s view of the installation of lord Westmorland as chancellor of Oxford in 1761.

, eminent for his talents in perspective, was the eldest son of Mr. John Kirby, who was originally a schoolmaster at Orforcl, and who is known to topographers by a map of Suffolk which he published, and by “The Suffolk Traveller,” 12mo, a new edition of which was published in 1764. He was born at Parham, near Wickham-market, in 1716, and settled as a house-painter at Ipswich about 1738. Me had a turn for drawing, and published, early in life, twelve prints of castles, ancient churches, and monuments, in Suffolk, with a small descriptive pamphlet. He afterwards became intimate with the celebrated artist Gainsborough, the contemplation of whose works increased his taste for painting, but he had very little leisure to cultivate it, and has left only a few landscapes in the possession of his family; one of which, a view of the old kitchen at Glastonbury-abbey, was exhibited at Spring-gardens in 1770.

Being of a very serious and studious turn of mind, he, in his early years, from his very childhood, employed every leisure hour, and even abridged his natural rest, in the Acquisition of useful knowledge; but the study which rendered his name best known to the world, was that of perspective, on which he wrote a valuable treatise. When he had made a considerable progress in this, he happened to meet with Dr. Brook Taylor’s book, which furnished him, with additional hints, and rendered his system more perfect. On the publication of this work in 1754, he was requested by the society of arts to read lectures on the subject, for which he received the unanimous thanks of its members. But though his work was for the most part original, such was his modesty and candour, that he only called it “Dr. Brook Taylor’s Method of Perspective made easy.”

Wonders are told of his popularity. Whenever he preached, such multitudes assembled that it was necessary to defend the entrance of the church by guards and palisadoes. He was presented with addresses and pieces of plate from every parish, and the freedom of various corporations; his portrait was painted and engraved by the most eminent artists, and the collections at his sermons far exceeded any that ever were known. F.ven in times of public calamity and distress, his irresistible powers of persuasion repeatedly produced contributions exceeding a thousand or twelve hundred pounds at a sermon; and his hearers, not content with emptying their purses into the plate, sometimes threw in jewels or watches, as earnest of further benefactions. He died, exhausted as we are told, by the fatigues of his mission, Oct. 27, 1805, leaving a widow with two sons and two daughters, to whom his majesty granted a pension of 30l. a year for the life of the widow, with reversion to the daughters. In 1814, a volume of his “Sermons” was printed for the benefit of his sons, who are not included in the above provision. From these it would be difficult to discover the causes of his extreme popularity. There are in them many animated and brilliant passages addressed to the feelings and passions, and these, we presume, were assisted by a manner suited to his audience, of which we can form no opinion. His talents, however, as directed to one point, that of recommending charity, were unquestionably successful beyond all precedent, and his private character well corresponded to his public sentiments. He was a man of acute reeling, amiable, humane, and beneficent.

, a German poet of the greatest renown, was born at Quedlinburg, July 2, 1724. He was the eldest of eleven children, and distinguished himself in his youth among his companions in bodily and mental exercises. At the age of sixteen he went to college, and being placed under Freitag, a very able tutor, he made himself familiar with the languages, and acquiring a taste for the beauties of the best classical authors, made attempts in composition both in prose and verse. In the latter he wrote some pastorals, but not contented with these humbler efforts, he formed at this early period the resolution of composing an epic poem, and fixed upon the “Messiah” as his subject. Such an effort was not known in the German language and the high opinion he had of Virgil, his favourite poet amongst the ancients the honour of being the first who should offer the Cerman public a work like the fiLneid; the warmth of patriotism that early animated him to raise the fame of German literature in this particular to a level with that of other European countries; the indignation he felt in reading the book of a Frenchman, who had denied the Germans every talent for poetry; all combined with the consciousness of his own superior powers, to spur him on to the execution of his exalted purpose. In 1745 he went to the university of Jena, where he commenced the study of theology; but in the midst of his academical pursuits he was planning his projected work, and sketched out his three first cantos, first in prose, but afterwards in hexameters, and was so pleased with having introduced a metre into German poetry, as ever afterwards to defend this mode of versification. In 1746, he removed from Jena to Leipsic, and became a member of a society of young men who had formed themselves into a literary club for mutual improvement. About this time he exercised his genius in lyric compositions. Several of his odes, together with the three first cantos of his Messiah, appeared in a periodical paper entitled “Bremen Contributions.” At length the publication of ten books of his Messiah made his name known throughout Germany, and raised his reputation very high. It found friends and enemies, admirers and critics, every where but its approbation was owing as much to the sacredness of the matter as the beauty of the poetry Christian readers loved it as a book that afforded them at length, amidst the themes of orthodoxy, some scope for devout feeling; young preachers quoted it in the pulpit, and coupled the name of Klopstock with that of the prophets. The stauncher class of divines, indeed, gave the poem the appellation of presumptuous fiction, contaminating the scripture-history with fables, and undermining the faith. The partisans of the German grammarian Gottsched raised the greatest clamour against the work, on the ground of the language, and sought by poor arguments and sorry wit to depreciate its merits. The Swiss critics, as opponents to the Saxons, on the other hand, extolled and defended it with all their might. Bodmer, in particular, the admirer and translator of Milton, embraced the cause of the German epic bard with enthusiastic ardour, and contributed very greatly, by his warm euloaium, to accelerate the universal celebrity of his poem. Klopstock heard and profited by the public disquisitions, but never engaged in any of the disputes.

, author of an excellent History of the Turks, was born in Northamptonshire, and educated at Oxford, where he was admitted about 1560; but we are not told of what college, though it is said he was, after taking his degrees, chosen fellow of Lincoln college. When he had continued there some time, Sir Peter Manwood, of St. Stephen’s near Canterbury, “minding to be a favourer of his studies,” says Wood, “called him from the university, and preferred him to be master of the free-school at Sandwich in Kent,” where he applied himself with diligence, and produced many good scholars for the universities. For their use he composed “Grammaticae Latinae, Graccae, & Hebraicse, compendium, cum radicibus,” Lond. 1600: but his fame rests chiefly on his “History of the Turks,” which was first printed in 1610, folio, and which was the labour of twelve years. In the latter editions of this book, for there have been several, it has this title “The general History of the Turks, from the first beginning of that Nation, to the rising of the Ottoman Family,” &c. Some have suggested, that Knolles was not the sole author of this history, because there appear in it several translations from Arabic histories, which language they affirmed him not to have known: but such conjectures are not sufficient to deprive him of the credit which justly attends the work. It has been continued, since Knolles’s death, by several hands. One continuation was made, from the year 1628 to the end of 1637, collected out of the dispatches of sir Peter Wyche, knight, ambassador at Constantinople. But the best continuation of the Turkish history is made by Paul Ricaut, esq. consul of Smyrna, from 1623 to 1677, printed at London, 1680, in folio. Hicaut began his “History of the Turkish Empire,” from a period earlier than Knolles had left off; for he tells us, in his preface to the reader, that “the reign of sultan Amurat, being imperfectly written in Knolles’s history, consisting, for the most part, of abrupt collections, he had thought fit, for the better completing the reign of the sultan, and the whole body of our Turkish history, to deliver all the particular transactions thereof with his own pen.”

, a learned German, was born at Altorf, in Franconia, in 1616; and afterwards became professor of poetry and of the Greek tongue, and library-keeper, in the university there, in which last office he succeeded his father. He was well versed in the belles lettres, in divinity, and in the oriental languages; but, being afflicted with deafness some years before he died, he was much impeded in the discharge of his academical functions. He died Dec. 2 9, 1699, having survived a wife, whom he married in 1648, and four children. He gave several public specimens of his learning, but is principally known for a work entitled “Bibliotheca vetus et nova,” printed at Altorf, 1678, 4to. This is a biographical dictionary, which, though not free from defects, is a very useful collateral help in the investigation of literary history.

, a celebrated fanatic, was born at Breslaw in Silesia in 1651, and gave great hopes by the uncommon progress he made in literature; but this was interrupted by a sickness he laboured under at eighteen years of age. He was thought to be dead on the third day of his illness, but had then, it seems, a most terrible vision. He fancied himself surrounded with all the devils in hell, and this at mid-day, when he was awake. This vision was followed by another of God himself, surrounded by his saints, and Jesus Christ in the midst; when he saw and felt things inexpressible. Two days after, he had more visions of the same kind; and when he was cured of his distemper, though he perceived a vast alteration with regard to these sights, yet he found himself perpetually encompassed with a circle of light on his left hand. He had no longer any taste for human learning, nor any value for university-disputes or lectures; he would have no other master but the Holy Ghost. He left his country at nineteen years of age. His desire to see Holland made him hasten thither, even in the midst of a desolating war; and he landed at Amsterdam, Sept. 3, 1673, which was but three days before the retaking the city of Naerden. He went to Leyden a few days after, and meeting with Jacob Behmen’s works, his disorder increased, for he now said he found that Behmen had prophesied of things, of which he thought nobody but himself had the least knowledge. There was at that time in Holland one John Hothe, a prophet likewise of the same stamp; for whom Kuhlman conceived a high veneration, and dedicated to him his “Prodromus quinquennii mirabilis,” printed at Leyden in 1674. This work was to be followed by two other volumes, in the first of which he intended to introduce the studies and discoveries he had made from the time of his first vision to 1674. He communicated his design to father Kircher; and, commending some books which that Jesuit had published, he let him know, that he had only sketched out what himself intended to carry much farther Kircher wrote him civil answers, in which he did not trouble himself to defend his works, but declared, that, having written only as a man, he did not pretend to equal those who wrote by inspiration. “I frankly own myself,” says he, “incapable of your sublime and celestial knowledge: what I have written, I have written after a human manner, that is, by knowledge gained by study and labour, not divinely inspired or infused. I do not doubt but that you, by means of the incomparable and vast extent of your genius, will produce discoveries much greater and more admirable than my trifles. You promise great and. incredible things, which, as they far transcend all human capacity, so I affirm boldly, that they have never been attempted, nor even thought of, by any person hitherto; and therefore I cannot but suspect, that you have obtained by the gift of God such a knowledge as the scriptures ascribe to Adam and Solomon: I mean, an Adamic and Solomonic knowledge, known to no mortal but yourself, and inexplicable by any other.” Our fanatic, not perceiving that his correspondent was jesting with him, carefully published Kircher’s answers, using capital letters in those passages where he thought himself praised. Kircher, however, gave him serious advice, when Kuhlman consulted him about writing to the pope: he told him with what circumspection and caution things were conducted at Rome; and assured him, that in his great work, which he proposed to dedicate to the pope, he must admit nothing which might offend the censors of books, and especially take care not to ascribe to himself an inspired knowledge.

, a celebrated chemist, was born at Husurn, in the duchy of Sleswick, in 1630. He was originally intended for the practice of pharmacy; but having applied himself with equal diligence to the study of chemistry and metallurgy, he obtained great reputation in. these sciences, and was appointed chemist to the elector of Saxony. He afterwards went to the court of Frederic William, elector of Brandenburg, with a similar appointment; and subsequently to that of Charles XI. king of Sweden, who, in 1693, granted him letters of nobility, under the name of Kunckel de Loewenstern. He was elected a member of the imperial Academia Naturae Curiosorum, under the name of Hermes III. He died in Sweden, in March 1703. Notwithstanding his advantages and fame, his theoretical knowledge was very imperfect; he was altogether destitute of the least tincture of philosophy, and was even said to have been one of the searchers for the philosopher’s stone. He is now principally known as the discoverer of phosphorus, which he prepared from urine, and which bears his name in the shops. He was the author of several works, written in German, in a very bad style, and with as little method as the rest of the alchemists. His treatise “On Phosphorus,” was printed at Leipsic in 1678, and his “Art of Glass-making” in 1689. Two or three of his essays have been translated into Latin.

“Dr. Raster, a tall, thin, pale man, seemingly unable to bear fatigue, was nevertheless indefatigable, and of an uncommon application to letters. He formed himself under Graevius. I was acquainted with him from 1700 to 1714-. Upon my collecting the remains of Anacreon for Mr. Barnes, about 1702, he introduced me to Dr. Bentley. You must be known, says he, to that gentleman, whom I look upon, not only as the first scholar in Europe, but as the best of friends. I only hinted to him the difficulty I lay under in relation to the officers of the customs; and, presently after, he accommodated that troublesome affair to my entire satisfaction, without so much as once letting me know he had any hand in it till near a year after: unde satis compertum mihi Bentleium esse re officiosum non verbis. Many an excellent emendation upon Suidas have I received from him. I the rather mention this, says Mr. Wasse, because when that Lexicon was in the press, Kuster with indignation shewed me an anonymous letter in Latin, addressed to him, wherein he was advised not to treat the doctor with that distinction, if he intended his book should make its way in the learned world. But to proceed; when he came to write upon Suidas, he found himself under a necessity of making indices of all the authors mentioned by the ancients; Eustathius particularly, and nineteen volumes of Commentaries upon Aristotle, &c. of the history, geography, and chronological characters occasionally mentioned. Dr. Bentley prevailed upon me to give him some assistance. Those that fell to my lot were chiefly Eustathius on the Odyssey, seven or eight Scholiasts, Plutarch, Galen. You may judge of Kuster’s dispatch and application, when I tell you I could by no means keep pace with him, though I began the last author Jan. 9, 1703, and finished him March the 8th of the same year, and in proportion too, the remainder. Though I corrected all the sheets of the first volume, yet I never perceived he had omitted some less material words, nor ever knew the true reason. I have heard him blamed too for mentioning the names of one or two persons who sent him a few notes; but this was occasioned, I am confident, by the hurry he was always in, and the great number of letters, memorandums, and other papers he had about him. As I remember, he translated cle novo in a manner five or six sheets a week, and remarked upon them; so that the work was hastily executed, and would have been infinitely more perfect, had he allowed himself time. Some people thought they assisted him when they did not. A person of figure took him into his closet after dinner, and told him he would communicate something of mighty importance, a xfi/xiiMov, which in all difficulties had been his oracle. In an ill hour I met Kuster transported with delight. We found it was Bndaeus’s Lexicon, large paper, with only the names of the authors he quotes written in the margin, without one single remark or addition. Kuster, the best-natured man alive, was terribly put to it how to treat one that meant well, and continually inquired what service it did him, and triumphed that he was able to contribute so largely to the worthy edition of Suidas. Towards the close of the work, Kuster grew very uneasy, emaciated to the last degree, cold as a statue, and just as much alive as a man three parts dead. Sure I was to hear, every time I called upon him, * O utinam illuce.scat ille dies, quo huic operi manum ultimam imponam' It may now be proper to acquaint you in what manner this gentleman used to relax, and forget his labours over a bottle, for even Scipio and Luelius were not such fools as to be wise always; and that was generally in the poetical way, or in conversations that turned upon antiquities, coins, inscriptions, and obscure passages of the ancients. Sometimes he performed on the spinnet at our music-club, and was by the connoisseurs accounted a master. His chief companions were, Dr. Sike, famous in oriental learning; Davies and Needham; Mr. Oddy, who wrote Greek pretty well, and has left notes upon Dio, and a version of Apollonius Rhodius, which are reposited in lord Oxford’s library; he is the person whose conjectures upon Avienus were printed by Dr. Hudson at the end of his Geographers; and Mr. IJarnes, the Greek professor. Upon the publication of his Suidas, Kuster in a little time grew very fat; and, returning into Prussia, found his patrons retired from court, and his salary precarious. What is more, his principles, which inclined to what is now called Arianism, rendered him not very acceptable to some persons. In a little time measures were taken to make him uneasy, and he retired to Amsterdam. Here he reprinted Dr. Mill’s New Testament, and published Aristophanes, and some additional remarks upon Suidas, under Mr. Le Clerc’s cover. But his banker failing, he was reduced to extreme poverty; and, happening at that very juncture to be invited to Paris by his old friend l'abbe Bignon, was unfortunately prevailed upon to join himself to the Gallican church. He desired me to write to him, as usual, but never on the article of religion; declaring, at the same time, how he had not been obliged to make a formal recantation, or condemn the reformed by an express act of his, but merely to conform. How far this is true I know not; what is certain is, only that he was promised all the favour and distinction any convert could expect. He was presently admitted a member of the royal academy of inscriptions; and in 1714, in return for a paper of verses I sent him, made me a present of his book c De vero usu verborum mediorum; xpvesa %ataW The last 1 had from Kuster contained only queries upon Hesychius; on whom, before he left England, he had made about 5000 emendations. His queries were not over difficult and thence I guessed his health much impaired. And it proved so indeed for we heard soon after, that he had been blooded five or six times for a fever, and that, upon opening his body, there was found a cake of sand along the lower region of his belly. This, I take it, was occasioned by his sitting in a manner double, and writing on a very low table, surrounded with three or four circles of books placed on the ground, which was the situation we usually found him in. He had a clear head, cool and proper for debate: he behaved in a very inoffensive manner; and I am persuaded, the last error of his life was almost the only one, and by charitable persons will be placed in a good measure to the account of his deplorable circumstances; for if oppression, which only affects a part, will, why shall not the loss of all one’s fortunes, purchased with so much labour, ‘make a wise man mad.’”

Little or nothing is known of his life. His works are numerous, and therefore he must have lived long; for they are of so highly finished a quality that he must have given much time to them. In the various collections among the nobility in England, works of his shine with almost unrivalled lustre; and are not very uncommon. At the marquis of Stafford’s is a very fine one of the landing of prince Maurice at Dort. There are also several others of great merit.

, an ecclesiastic and antiquary, was born in Worcestershire towards the latter end of the fifteenth century. When he was about fifteen years of age, he was received into the monastery of Benedictine monks at Winchcombe in Gloucestershire; whence, being professed one of that order, he was sent to Gloucester-hall, Oxford, which was then a school for young Benedictines. After studying there four years, he was recalled to his monastery, and made principal chapjain; and his good conduct procured him to be chosen abbot in 1487. He had considerable reputation as a scholar and a promoter of learning; and was an exact observer and reformer of the discipline of his house. In one of his visits to Oxford, which were frequent, he took the degree of D. D. in 1500. He also visited Rome on some affairs belonging to his order, and on his return acquired much reputation as a preacher in the beginning of the reign of Henry VIII. In 1515, when there was a great debate between the clergy and the laity concerning exceptions; some asserting that what is called the “benefit of clergy,” should not be extended but to the higher orders, our abbot contended that the minor or inferior orders should also be included. He died in 1531, leaving “Tractatus contra doctrinam Lutheri,” 1521, one of the first attacks on that reformer’s doctrines from this country. But he was more known for his history of the foundation of Winchcombe monastery a list of its abbots and its charters and privileges manuscripts which have been partly lost.

, an English poet, son of sir Edward Kynaston, knt. was of an ancient family, whose seat was at Otely in Shropshire, where, probably, he was born in 1587. In 1601 he entered as a gentleman- commoner of Oriel college, Oxford, which he left after taking his bachelor’s degree, being then, as Wood says, “more addicted to the superficial parts of learning, poetry and oratory (wherein he excelled), than logic and philosophy.” He afterwards, however, went to Cambridge, and after taking his master’s degree, returned in 1611 to Oxford, and was admitted ad eundem. He then became a courtier, admired for his talents, and had the honour of knighthood conferred upon him, and was afterwards made esquire of the body to Charles I. He was the first regent of a literary institution called the Musaum Minerv& 9 of which he drew up and published “The Constitutions,” Lond. 4to, 1636. It was an academy instituted in the eleventh year of the reign of Charles I. and established at a house in Coventgarden, purchased by Sir Francis, and furnished by him with books, Mss. paintings, statues, musical and mathematical instruments, &c. and every requisite for polite and liberal education: but the nobility and gentry only were admissible. Sir Francis was chosen regent, and professors were appointed to teach the various arts and sciences. It probably, owing to the rebellion, did not survive its founder, who died about 1642. He translated Chaucer’s 46 Troilus and Cresseide“into Latin, published at Oxford, 1635, 4to; but is better known to the lovers of our early poetry by his” Leoline and Sydanis,“with” Cinthiades,“1641, of which Mr. Ellis has given some beautiful specimens, and the story is analized by Mr. Gilchrist, with additional extracts, in the” Censtira."

, son of Humphry Kynaston, citizen of Chester (descended from a younger branch of the Kynastons of Bronguin, in the county of Montgomery), was born at Chester, Dec. 5, 1728; admitted a commoner in Brazen-nose college, Oxford, March 20, 1746; elected scholar, on the foundation of Sarah dutchess dowager of Somerset, in the said college, Aug. I of the same year took the degree of B. A. Oct. 16, 1749 was elected fellow June 14, 1751 and took the decree of M. A. June 4, 1752. He obtained no small reputation by an Oratiuncula, entitled, “De Impietate C. CornelioTacito falso objectata; Oratio ex Instituto Viri cl. Francisci Bridgman , militis, habita in Sacello Collegii JEnei Nasi Oxon. Festo Sancti Thomre, Decembris 2':, A. D. 1761, a J. K. A. M. Coll. ejusdem Socio;” in which he endeavoured to disprove the false allegations (for such he really thought them) of Famianus Strada (the excellent critic, and most elegant writer) against Tacitus, on his impiety and sovereign contempt of the Supreme. On the apprehension of the notorious miss Blandy, Mr. Kynaston took an active part, from the time of her conviction till her body was secured from indecent treatment. In this business he barely steered free from censure. His method was, to be with her as much as postible when the ordinary (the learned, well-known, but credulous Mr. Swinton, whom she gained to countenance her hypocrisy) was absent; and was suspected to have given hopes of pardon, in concert with another person, also of Brazen-nose College, to the morning of her execution, when she appeared in that studied genteel dress and attitude which she could not possibly have put on had she been watchfully attended by a firmer-minded instructor. In 1764, he published “A collection of papers relative to the prosecution now carrying on in the Chancellor’s Court in Oxford, against Mr. Kynaston, by Matthew Maddock, clerk, rector of Cotworth and Holywell, in the county of Huntingdon, and chaplain to his grace of Manchester, for the charge of adultery alleged against the said Matthew Maddock,” 8vo. From the date of this publication (the cause of which operated too severely on his high sense of honour) he resided, in not the best state of health, at Wigan principally, loved and respected by a few select friends. On the 27th of March, 1783, Mr. Kynaston had the misfortune to break his left arm, near the shoulder; but, the bones having been properly replaced, he was thought out of danger. It brought on his death, however, in the June following.

, a celebrated Jesuit, was born July 10, 1607, of a good family at Bourges. He taught ethics, philosophy, and moral theology, with reputation, first at Bourges, and afterwards at Paris, where he settled. His memory was uncommon, and his learning very extensive; and he was esteemed by the literati for amiable temper and politeness, as well as for his writings. He died March 25, 1667, at Paris. He was not much of an original writer, the greatest part of his numerous works being compilations, which cost him little farther trouble than to collect and arrange, which, however, he did with judgment. The principal are, 1. “Nova Bibliotheca Mss. Librorum,” 1657, 2 vols. fol. containing many pieces which had never been printed before. 2. “De Byzantinae Historian Scriptoribus,” fol. in which is an account and catalogue of the writers of the Byzantine History, in chronological order. 3. “Two Lives of Galen,” taken from his works, 8vo. 4. “Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum,” Geneva, 1686, 4to, with the “Biblioth. nummaria,” and an “Auctuarium,” printed 1705. 5. “Concordia Chronologies,” 5 vols. fol. The 5th vol. is by Pere Briet; a learned work, but too obscure, and of little use. He published also, several pieces respecting the geographical history of France, and the Greek language, which are forgotten. 6. “Bibliotheca anti-Janseniana,” 4to, a catalogue of writings against Jansenius and his defenders. 7. An edition of the “Annals of Michael Glycas,” in Greek and Latin, fol. 8. A good edition of “Notitia dignitatum omnium imperii Roinani,” 1651, J2mo, a necessary book for the history of the Roman emperors. 9. An edition of Jonas bishop of Orleans’ works, “concerning the Instruction of a Christian King,” 12mo. 10. “De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis dissertutio,” 2 vols. 8vi, in which is a dissertation against the story of pope Joan. But the most known among Pere Labhe’s works, is his new “Collection of the Councils,” 1672, 17 vols. fol. with notes; to which is added an 18th vol. entitled “Apparatus alter,” because the 17th is also entitled “Apparatus.” This Collection was finished by Pere Gabriel Cossart, one of his brethren, a better and more judicious critic than himself, and is justly esteemed, though it is deficient in several respects, and contains many faults. Vigneul Marville says of P. Labbe, that he was an honest man, accused of being a little piratical, and of robbing the learned, not through necessity, but for amusement.

, a French historian and antiquary, was born in 1623, at Montmorency, near Paris, of which city his father was bailiff. He had scarcely attained his 13th year, when he became known to the literary world by his “Recueil de Tombeaux,” or a collection of monuments of illustrious persons buried in the church of the Celestines at Paris, together with their eloges, genealogies, arms, and mottoes. This work appeared in 1642, 4to; and although disclaimed by the authoron account of its imperfection, yet was so well received by the public, that a second edition came out the following year. In 1644 he was at court in quality of a gentleman in waiting, when he was chosen to attend the marshal de Guebriant, charged with conducting the princess Mary de Gonzaga into Poland, in order to her marriage with Ladislaus IV. Our author returned with the ambassadress the following year, and printed in 1647, at his own expence, a relation of the journey, which was very entertaining.

, a French writer, was born at Bourdeaux, and having early entered the schools of the Jesuits, became soon distinguished by a taste for history and polite literature, and although he never arrived at the wealth of his brother, the subject of the next article, he was thought his superior in knowledge and judgment. He made himself known in the literary world by a work entitled “Les Mosurs des Sauvages, compare'es aux mceurs des premiers siecles,” Paris, 1723, 2 vols. 4to, and 4 vols. 12mo and by his “Histoire des De*couvertes des Portugais dans le Nouveau Monde,” 1733, 2 vols. 4to, and 1734, 4 vols. 12mo. He wrote also “Remarquessur le Gin-Seng,” Paris, 1728, 12mo. The author had been sent as a missionary to the Iroquois, and the account he gives of them is the most accurate that we have; his comparison between the ancients and the Americans is also very ingenious, and shews great knowledge of antiquity. One other publication of his remains to be mentioned, “Histoire de Jean de Brienne, ernpereur de Constantinople,” Paris, 1727, 12mo. He died in 1755.

, a very eminent mathematician and philosopher, was born at Turin, Nov. 25, 1736, where his father, who had been treasurer of war, was in reduced circumstances. In his early days his taste was more inclined to classical than mathematical studies, and his attention to the latter is said to have been first incited by a memoir that the celebrated Halley had composed for the purpose of demonstrating the superiority of analysis. From this time Lagrange devoted himself to his new study with such acknowledged success, that at the age of sixteen he became professor of mathematics in the royal school of artillery at Turin. When he had discovered the talents of his pupils, all of whom were older than himself, he selected some as his more intimate friends, and -from this early association arose an important institution, the academy of Turin, which published in 1759 a first volume under the title of “Actes de la Socie*te* Prive*e.” It is there seen that young 'Lagrange superintended the philosophical researches of Cigna, the physician, and the labours of the chevalier de Saluces. He furnished Foncenex with the analytical part of his memoirs, leaving to him the task of developing the reasoning upon which the formulae depended. In these memoirs, which do not bear his name, may be observed that pure analytical style which characterizes his greatest productions. He discovered a new theory of the lever, which makes the third part of a memoir that had much celebrity. The first two parts are in the same style, and are known to be also by Lagrange, although he did not positively acknowledge them, and they were generally ascribed to Foncenex.

Lagrange, while giving up to his friend these anonymous solutions, published at the same time under his own name, theories which he promised to unfold and explain. After having given new formulae of maxima and minima, and after having shown the insufficiency of the methods already known, he announced that he would treat of this subject, which in other respects appeared interesting to him, in a work that he was preparing, and in which from the same principles would be deduced all the mechanical properties of bodies, whether solid or fluid. Thus at the early age of twenty. three, he laid the foundation of those great works which have attracted the admiration of the learned. In the same volume he applied the theory of recurring consequences and the doctrine of chances to the differential calculus, which till his attempt was worked by indirect methods, but which he established on more general principles.

Newton had undertaken to reduce the motion of fluids to calculation, and had made researches on the propagation of sound. His principles Lagrange found insufficient, and some of his suppositions inaccurate. This he demonstrated he founded his new researches on the known laws of Dynamics by considering only the particles in air that are in a right line, he reduced the problem to that of vibrating chords, upon which the greatest geometricians had differed. He showed that their calculations were insufficient to decide the question. He therefore undertook a general solution of it by an analysis as new as ingenious, by which he reduced at the same time an indefinite number of equations, and which included continued functions. He established more firmly Bernoulli’s theory of the mingling of simple and regular vibrations, showed within what limits this theory is accurate, and where it becomes erroneous. He then arrived at the construction given by Euler, a true construction, though discovered without any rigorous calculations. He also answered D‘Alembert’s objections. Euler perceived the merit of the new method, which he made an object of his profoundest meditations; but D’Alembert proposed numerous objections, which Lagrange afterwards answered. Euler' s first notice of this memoir was by making Lagrange a member of the Academy of Berlin, which he announced to him, Oct. 20, 1759, in a letter handsomely acknowledging the merit of his discoveries.

In the mean time, as the society of Turin was not quite to his taste, he had a strong desire to become personally acquainted with those scientific men at Paris, with whom he had correspondence; and an opportunity offering, he visited that city, and was kindly received by D'Alembert, Clairaut, Condorcet, Fontaine, Nollet, &c. Soon after, either from his well-known and well-earned fame, or in consequence of the recommendation of his friends, he was, in 1766, appointed director of the Berlin academy, forphysico-mathematical sciences. Here, as he was a foreigner, he had some prejudices to overcome; but by a diligent application to the duties of his office, and by steering clear of all contests and parties, political or religious, he soon gained universal esteem, and enriched the memoirs of the Academy of Berlin by a vast number of highly interesting papers, which, however, are but a part of what twenty years enabled him to produce. He had among other things published his “Mecauique analytique” at Paris, to which city he again removed on the death of Frederic, which occasioned great changes in Prussia, some of which it was supposed would affect the literary world. The successor of Frederic indeed was reluctant to part with such an ornament to the academy, and granted leave of absence on condition that Lagrange should continue to contribute to the Berlin memoirs; and the volumes for 1792, 1793, and 1803, show that he was faithful to his engagement.

, an eminent Flemish painter, was born at Liege, in 1640. His father, who was a tolerable painter, put his son first to study the belles lettres, poetry, and music, to the last of which Gerard dedicated a day in every week: but at length taught him design, and made him copy the best pictures, particularly those of Bertholet Flaraael, a canon of that city. At the age of fifteen, Gerard began to paint portraits, and some historical pieces, for the electors of Cologne and Brandenburgh, which contributed-to make him known, and gave him great reputation. The ease, however, with which he got his money tempted him to part with it as easily, and run into expence. He was fond of dress, and making a figure in the world; he had also an ambition to please the ladies, and fancied that the liveliness of his wit would compensate in some degree for the deformity of his person. But one of his mistresses, whom he had turned off, having out of revenge wounded him dangerously with a knife, he abandoned such promiscuous gallantry, and married. While settled at Utrecht, and poor, he was seized with a contagious distemper; and, his wife lying-in at the same time, he was reduced to offer a picture to sale for present support, which, in three days’ time, was bought by Vytenburgh, a picture-merchant at Amsterdam, who engaged him to go to that city. Accordingly Lairesse settled there; and his reputation rose to so high a pitch, that the Hollanders esteem him the best history-painter of their country, and commonly call him their second Raphael; Hemskirk is their first. Yet his style of painting was but a compound of those of Poussin and the old French school. While he aimed at imitating the best Italian masters, he never avoided those false airs of the head and limbs, which seem rather taken from the stage than from nature; so that his works do not rise to the level of true merit. At length, borne down with infirmities, aggravated by the loss of his eye-sight, he finished his days at Amsterdam, in 1711, at the age of seventy-one.

was many years rector of Stamford Rivers, near Ongar, in Essex; and author of the celebrated “Essay on Delicacy,” 1748. In speaking of Or. Lancaster, Mr. Hull the comedian, who was lus nepuew, (in a note on “Select Letters between the late Dutchess of Somerset, Lady Luxborough,” &c. &c. 1768, 2 vols. 8vo), says, “He w;is a man of strong natural parts, gieat erudition, refined taste, and master of a nervous, and at the same time elegant style, as is obvious to every one who has had the happiness to read the Essay here spoken of. His writings were fewer in number than their author’s genius seemed to promise to his friends, and his publications less known than their intrinsic excellence deserved. Had he been as solicitous as he was capable to instruct and please the world, few prose writers would have surpassed h m; but in his latter years he lived a recluse, and whatever he composed in the hours of retired leisure, he (unhappily for the public) ordered to be burned, which was religiously (I had almost said irreligiously) performed. He was a native of Cheshire; and in his early years, under the patronage and friendship of the late earl of Cholmondely, mixed in all the more exalted scenes of polished life, where his lively spirit and brilliant conversation rendered him universally distinguished and esteemed; and even till within a few months of his decease (near seventy-five years of age) these faculties could scarce be said to be impaired. The Essay on Delicacy (of which we are now speaking) the only material work of his which the editor knows to have survived him, was first printed in 1748, and has been very judiciously and meritoriously preserved by the late Mr. Dodsley in his Fugitive Pieces.” Notwithstanding Mr. Hull’s assertion, that his uncle wrote nothing but the “Essay,” a sermon of his, under the title of“Public Virtue, or the Love of our Country,” was printed in 1746, 4to. He was also author of a long anonymous rhapsodical poem, called “The Old Serpent, or Methodism Triumphant,” 4to. The doctor’s imprudence involved him so deeply in debt, that he was some time confined for it, and left his parsonage-house in so ruinous a condition, that his successor Dr. Beadon was forced entirely to take it down. He died June 20, 1775, leaving two daughters, one of whom married to the rev. Thomas Wetenhall, of Chester, chaplain of a man of war, and vicar of Walthamstow, Essex, from 1759 till his death, 1776.

Our author was much esteemed by several learned men of his time, and held a literary correspondence with Usher and Selden. He was screened from the persecutions of the then prevailing powers, to whom he so far submitted as to continue quiet without opposing them, employing himself in promoting learning, and preserving the discipline of the university, as well as that of his own college. With what spirit he did this, is best seen in the following passages of two letters, one to Usher, and the other to Selden. In the first, dated from Queen’s-college, Feb. 9, 1646-7, he gives the following account of himself: “For myself, I cannot tell what account to make of my present employment. J have many irons in the fire, but of no great consequence. I do not know how soon I shall be called to give up, and am therefore putting my house in order, digesting the confused notes and papers left me by several predecessors, both in the university and college, which I purpose to leave in a better method than I found them. At Mr. Patrick Young’s request, I have undertaken the collation of Constantino’s Geoponics with two Mss. in our public library, upon which I am forced to bestow some vacant hours. In our college I am ex officio to moderate divinity-disputations once a week. My honoured friend Dr. Duck has given me occasion to make some inquiry after the law; and the opportunity of an ingenious young man, come lately from Paris, who has put up a private course of anatomy, has prevailed with me to engage myself for his auditor and spectator three days a week, four hours each time. But this I do ut explorator, non ut transfuga. For, though 1 am not solicitous to engage myself in that great and weighty calling of the ministry after this new way, yet I would lothe to be teiTrorautriit as to divinity. Though I am very insufficient to make a master-builder, yet I could help to bring in materials from that public store in our library, to which I could willingly consecrate the remainder of my days, and count it no loss to be deprived of all other accommodations, so I might be permitted to enjoy the liberty of my conscience, and study in that place. But if there be such a price set upon the latter as I cannot reach without pawning the former, I am resolved. The Lord’s will be done.” The other letter to Selden, is dated Nov. 8, 1653; “I was not so much troubled to hear of that fellow, who lately, in London, maintained in public that learning is a sin, as to see some men, v.onld he accounted none of the meanest among ourselves here at home, under pretence of piety, go about to banish it th university. I cannot make any better construction of a late order made by those whom we call visitors, upon occasion of an election last week at All-Souls college to this effect, that for the future, no scholar be chosen into any place in any college, unless he bring a testimony, under the hands of four persons at least (not electors) known to these visitors to be truly godly men, that he who stands for such a place is himself truly godly; and by arrogating to themselves this power, they sit judges of all men’s consciences, and have rejected some, against whom they had no other exceptions, (being certified by such to whom their conversations were best known, to be unblameable, and statutably elected, after due examination and approbation of their sufficiency by that society), merely upon this account, that the persons who testified in their behalf are not known to these visitors to be regenerate. I intend (God willing) ere long to have an election in our college, and have not professed that I'will not submit to this order. Howl shall speed in it, I do not pretend to foresee; but if I be baffled, I shall hardly be silent.” Dr. Langbaine’s works were, 1. his Longinus, Oxon. 1636 and 1638, 8vo. 2. “Brief Discourse relating to the times of Edward VI.; or, the state of the times as they stood in the reign of King Edward VI. By way of Preface to a book intituled The true subject to the rebel: or, the hurt of sedition, &c. written by sir John Cheek.” Oxford, 1641, in 4to. To this Dr. Langbaine prefixed the life of sir John Cheek. 3. “Episcopal Inheritance; or, a Reply to the humble examination of a printed abstract; or the answers to nine reasons of the House of Commons against the votes of bishops in Parliament,” Oxford, 1641, 4to. To which is added, “A determination of the late learned Bishop of Salisbury (Davenant) Englished.” These two pieces were reprinted at London in 1680. 4. “A Review of the Covenant: wherein the original, grounds, means, matter, and ends of it are examined; and out of the principles of the remonstunce*, declarations, votes, orders and ordinances of trie prime covenanters, or the firmer grounds of scripture, law, and reason, disproved,” 1644. It was reprinted at London, 1661, in 4to. 5. “Answer of the Chancellor, master and scholars of the university of Oxford, to the petition, articles of grievance, and reasons of the city of Oxford; presented to the committee for regulating the University of Oxford, 24 July 1649,” Oxford, 1649, 4to; reprinted in 1678, with a book entitled “A defence of the rights and privileges of the University of Oxford,” &c. published by James Harrington, then bachelor (soon after master) of arts, and student of Christ-church, at Oxford, 1690, 4to. 6. “Quacstiones pro more solenni in Vesperiis propositac ann. 1651,” Oxford, 1658, 4to. Published by Mr. Thomas Barlow, afterwards Bp. of Lincoln, among several little works of learned men. 7. “Platonicorum aliquot, qui etiamnum supersunt, Authorum, Graecorum, imprimis, mox Latinorum, syllabus alphabeticus,” Oxford, 1607, 8vo, drawn up by our author at the desire of archbishop Usher, but left imperfect; which being found among his papers, was, with some few alterations, placed at the end of “Alcini, in Plutonicam Philosophiam Introductio,” published by Dr. John Fell, dean of Christ-church. 8. There is also ascribed to our author, “A View of the New Directory, and a Vindication of the ancient Liturgy of the Church of England: in answer to the reasons pretended in the ordinance and preface for the abolishing the one, and establishing the other,” Oxford, 1645, 4to, pages 112, Dr. Langbaine also published, 1. “The Foundation of the university of Oxford, with a Catalogue of the principal founders and special benefactors of all the colleges, and total number of students,” &c. London, 165I,4to f mostly taken from the Tables of John Scot of Cambridge, printed in '622. 2. “The Foundation of the University of Cambridge, with a Catalogue,” &c. printed with the forme? Catalogue, and taken from Mr. Scot’s Tables. He likewise laboured very much in finishing archbishop Usher’s book, entitled “Chronologia Sacra,” but died when he had almost completed it, which was done by Barlow. He translated into Latin “Reasons of the present judgment of the university concerning the solemn League and Covenant,” and assisted Dr. Robert Sanderson, and Dr. Richard Zouch, in the drawing up of those Reasons. He translated into English “A Review of the Council of Trent, written in French by a learned Roman catholic,” Oxford, 1638, fol. in which is represented the dissent of the Gallican church from several conclusions of the Council. He left behind him thirteen 4tos, and eight 8vos, in manuscript, with innumerable collections in loose papers, collected chiefly from ancient manuscripts in the Bodleian library, &c, He had also made several catalogues of manuscripts in various libraries, and of printed books likewise, with a view, as was supposed, to an universal Catalogue. Dr. Fuller tells us that he took a great deal of pains in the continuation of Brian Twyne’s “Antiq. Academ. Oxon.” and that he was intent upon it when he died. But Mr. Wood observes, that Dr. Thomas Barlow and Dr. Lamplugh, who looked over his library after his death, assured him that they saw nothing done towards such a design. Dr. Langbaine assisted Dr. Arthur Duck in composing his book “De usu & authoritate Juris Civilis Homanorum in Dominiis Principum Christianorum,” London, 1653, 8vo. In Parr’s collection of Usher’s letters, are several letters of our author to that prelate.

About this time, he published “An Appendix to a catalogue of all the graduates in divinity, law, and physic,” &c. written by R. Peers, superior beadle of arts and physic. Langbaine’s appendix contains the names of all “who proceeded from the 14th of June 168S, where Peers left off, to the 6th of August 1690. He did not survive this long, some disorder carrying him off in June 1692. But he is best known as the author of the” Account of the English dramatic poets,“His first attempt in this way was by a republication of a catalogue of plays collected original ir by Kirkman, a London bookseller, and appended to” Nicomede,“a translation of a play from Corneille in 1671. This Langbaine followed in 1688 by” MomusTriumphans,“which appeared afterwards under the title of” A new Catalogue of English Plays,“&c. The author at length digested his work anew, with great accessions and improvements, which he entitled” An Account of the English Dramatic Poets,“&c. Oxford, 1691, 8vo, reprinted by Gildon in 1699. Langbaine’s own collection amounted, as he says, to” above 980 English plays and masques, basides drolls and interludes.“The copy of his” Account" in the British Museum, with Oldys’s ms notes, is fell known to every student of dramatic history.

His conduct hitherto had been becoming his station, but we have now to record one action of his which, as Anthony Wood says, it is impossible to defend. This was the removal of the celebrated John Wickliff from his situation as head of a hall at Oxford, called Canterbury-hall, founded by his predecessor Simon Islip. Whether his holding tenets which might then be deemed heretical was the archbishop’s true reason for ejecting him, does not appear. That which he avowed was, that having a desire that the hall should be a college for the education of monks, he thought a secular priest (between whom and the monastic order it is well known a considerable jealousy subsisted) would be an improper person for their governor. But although this might have been the opinion of the prelate, it does not appear to have been that of the society; the fellows of which convened a meeting, in whichfthey drew up a spirited remonstrance against the tyranny of their superior. This was so ill receded by him, and their subsequent conduct considered as so contumacious, that he sequestered a large portion of their revenue. War was now declared on both sides. The society appealed to the pope, the archbishop sent an agent to Rome to answer for him; and he had interest enough to induce his holiness to confirm the decree by which Wickliff and some other refractory members of the fraternity were removed, and their places filled with those who were more steady adherents to nonachism, and consequently more devoted to the will of the archbishop.

His “Letters on Religious Retirement” were dedicated, with rather more success, to bishop Warburton, who returned a complimentary letter, in which he encouraged our author to make some attempt in the cause of religion. This is supposed to have produced, in 1763, “The Letters that passed between Theodosius and Constantia,” a fiction founded on a well-known story in the Spectator. The style of these letters is in general elegant, but in some parts too florid. The*“Letter on Prayer” is very equivocal in its tendency. This year also gave birth to a poem, meant to be philosophical, entitled “The Enlargement of the Mind,” part first, in which we find some noble sentiments expressed in glowing and elevated language. His next publication, about the same time, called “Effusions of Friendship and Fancy,” 2 vols. 12rno, was a work of considerable popularity. It is indeed a very pleasing miseellany of humour, fancy, and criticism, but the style is often flippant and irregular, and made him be classed among the imitators of Sterne, whom it was too much the fashion at that time to read and to admire.

Towards the latter end of the year 1771, Dr. Langhorne went to reside for a few months at Potton, in Bedf. rdshire, where he wrote his “Origin of Ihe Veil,” which, however, was not published for some time after. In 1772, he paid a visit to his native country, and married a second wife, the daughter of Thomson, esq. a magistrate near Brough, and soon after took her with him on a tour through part of France and Flanders, the scenery of which afforded new topics for his muse. Late in the Spring he returned to Blagdon, where he was put into the commission of the peace: and having considered the usual practice of the duties of that office, he imparted his sentiments on the subject in a species of didactic and satirical poem, entitled “The Country Justice,” in three parts, published in 1774, 1775, and 1777. This humane endeavour to plead the cause of the poor and wretched against oppression and neglect does great honour to his feelings, which, indeed, in all his works, are on the side of benevolence and virtue. It is said to have been written in consequence of the suggestion, and as to facts, probably with the assistance, of Dr. Burn, the well-known author of a digest of the laws relating to justices of the peace. In 1772, Dr. Langhorne presented the public with a liberal translation of that part of Denina on the ancient republics of Italy which contains the author’s reflections on the admission of the Italian states to the franchises of Rome .

This connexion with Melancthon did not, however, extinguish the inclination which Languet had to travel. In 1551, he took up a resolution to visit some part of Europe every year, for which he set apart the autumn season, returning to pass the winter at Wittenberg. In the course of these travels, he made the tour of Rome in 1555, and that of Livonia and Laponia in 1558. During this last tour, he became known to Gustavus king of Sweden, who conceived a great affection for him, and engaged him to go into France, in order to bring him thence some of the best scholars and artists: for which purpose his majesty gave him a letter of credit, dated Sept. 1, 1557. Two years after, Languet attended Adolphus count of Nassau and prince of Orange, into Italy; and at his return passed through Paris, to visit the celebrated Turnebus; but it was a great deduction from the pleasure of this interview, that he heard at this time of the death of his friend Melancthon.

, a very learned dissenting clergyman, was born at Hawkhurst, in Kent, June 6, 1684. He was educated for some time at a dissenter’s academy in London, by the Rev. Dr. Oldfield, whence he went to Utrecht, and studied under Grsevius and Burman, and made all the improvement which might be expected under such masters. From Utrecht Mr. Lardner went to Leyden, whence, after a short stay, he came to England, and employed himself in diligent preparation for the sacred profession. He did not, however, preach his first sermon till he was twenty-five years of age. In 1713 he was invited to reside in the house of lady Treby, widow of the lord chief justice of common pleas, as domestic chaplain to the lady, and tutor to her youngest son. He accompanied his pupil to France, the Netherlands, and United Provinces, and continued in the family till the death of lady Treby. It reflects no honour upon the dissenters that such a man should be so long neglected; but, in 1723, he was engaged with other ministers to carry on a course of lectures at the Old Jewry. The gentlemen who conducted these lectures preached a course of sermons on the evidences of natural and revealed religion. The proof of the credibility of the gospel history was assigned to Mr Lardner, and he delivered three sermons on this subject, which probably laid the foundation of his great work, as from this period he was diligently engaged in writing the first part of the Credibility. In 1727 he published, in two volumes octavo, the first part of “The Credibility of the Gospel History; or the facts occasionally mentioned in the New Testament, confirmed by passages of ancient authors who were contemporary with our Saviour, or his apostles, or lived near their time.” It is unnecessary to say how well these volumes were received by the learned world, without any distinction of sect or party. Notwithstanding, however, his great merit, Mr. Lardner was forty-five years of age before he obtained a settlement among the dissenters; but, in 1729, he was invited by the congregation of Crutcbedfriars to be assistant to their minister. At this period the enthusiasm of Mr. Woolston introduced an important controversy. In various absurd publications he treated the miracles of our Saviour with extreme licentiousness. These Mr. Lardner confuted with the happiest success, in a work which he at this time published, and which was entitled “A Vindication of three of our Saviour’s Miracles.” About the same time also he found leisure to write other occasional pieces, the principal of which was his “Letter on the Logos.” In 1733, appeared the first volume of the second part of the “Credibility of the Gospel-history,” which, besides being universally well received at home, was so much approved abroad, that it was translated by two learned foreigners; by Mr. Cornelius Westerbaen into Low Dutch, and by Mr. J. Christopher Wolff into Latin. The second volume of the second part of this work appeared in 1735; and the farther Mr. Lardner proceeded in his design, the more he advanced in esteem and reputation among learned men of all denominations. In 1737 he published his “Counsels of Prudence” for the use of young people, on account of which he received a complimentary letter from Dr. Seeker, bishop of Oxford. The third and fourth volumes of the second part of the “Credibility,” no less curious than the precediug, were published in 1738 and 1740. The fifth volume in 1743. To be circumstantial in the account of all the writings which this eminent man produced would greatly exceed our limits. They were all considered as of distinguished usefulness and merit. We may in particular notice the “Supplement to the Credibility,” which has a place in the collection of treatises published by Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff. Notwithstanding Dr. Lardner’s life and pen were so long and so usefully devoted to the public, he never rfceived any adequate recompence. The college of Aberdeen conferred on him the degree of doctor of divinity, and the diploma had the unanimous signature of the professors. But his salary as a preacher was inconsiderable, and his works often published to his loss instead of gain. Dr. Lardner lived to a very advanced age, and, with the exception of his hearing, retained the use of his faculties to the last, in a remarkably perfect degree. In 1768 he fell into a gradual decline, which carried him off in a few weeks, at Hawkhurst, his native place, at the age of eighty-five. He had, previously to his last illness, parted with the copy-right of his great work for the miserable sum of 150l. but he hoped if the booksellers had the whole interest of his labours, they would then do their utmost to promote the sale of a work that could not fail to be useful in promoting the interests of his fellow creatures, by promulgating the great truths of Christianity. After the death of Dr. Lardner, some of his posthumous pieces made their appearance; of these the first consist of eight sermons, and brief memoirs of the author. In 1776 was published a short letter which the doctor had written in 1762, “Upon the Personality of the Spirit.” It was part of his design, with regard to “The Credibility of the Gospel History,” to give an account of the heretics of the first two centuries. In 1780 Mr. Hogg, of Exeter, published another of Dr. Lardner' s pieces, upon which he had bestowed much labour, though it was not left in a perfect state; this was “The History of the Heretics of the first two centuries after Christ, containing an account of their time, opinions, and testimonies to the books of the New Testament; to which are prefixed general observations concerning Heretics.” The last of Dr. Lardner’s pieces was given to the world by the late Rev. Mr. Wicbe, then of Muidstone, in Kent, and is entitled “Two schemes of a Trinity considered, and the Divine Unity asserted;” it consists of four discourses; the first represents the commonly received opinion of the Trinity; the second describes the Arian scheme the third treats of the Nazarene doctrine and the fourth explains the text according to that doctrine. This work may perhaps be regarded as Supplementary to a piece which he wrote in early life, and which he published in 1759, without his name, entitled “A Letter written in the year 1730, concerning the question, Whether the Logos supplied the place of the Human Soul in the person of Jesus Christ:” in this piece his aim was to prove that Jesus Christ was, in the proper and natural meaning of the word, a man, appointed, anointed, beloved, honoured, and exalted by God, above all other beings. Dr. Lardner, it is generally known, had adopted the Socinian tenets.

, in Latin Larroquanus, whom Bayle styles one of the most illustrious ministers the reformed ever had in France, was born at Leirac, a small city of Guienne, near Agen, in 1619. He was hardly past his youth when he lost his father and mother, who were persons of rank and character. This misfortune was soon ifol lowed by the loss of his whole patrimony, although by what means is not known; but the effect was to animate him more strongly to his studies, and to add to polite literature, which he had already learned, the knowledge of philosophy, and above all, that of divinity. He made a considerable progress in these sciences, and was admitted a minister with great applause. Two years after he had been admitted in his office he was obliged to go to Paris to answer the cavils of those who intended to ruin his church, in which, although he was not successful, he met with such circumstances as proved favourable to him. He preached sometimes at Charenton, and was so well liked by the duchess de la Tremouille, that she appointed him minister of the church of Vitre, in Britany, and gave him afterwards a great many proofs of her esteem; nor was he less respected by the prince and princess of Tarente, and the duchess of Weimar. He served that church about twenty-seven years, and studied the ancient fathers with the utmost application. He gave very soon public proofs of the progress he had made in that study, for the answer he published to the motives which an opponent had alledged for his conversion to popery, abounded with passages quoted from the fathers, and the works which he published afterwards raised his reputation greatly. There was an intimate friendship between him and Messieurs Daille, father and son, which was kept up by a constant literary correspondence; and the journey he took to Paris procured him the acquaintance of several illustrious men of letters. The church of Charenton wished to have invited him in 1669, but his enemies had so prepossessed the court against him, that his majesty sent a prohibition to that church not to think of calling him, notwithstanding the deputy general of the reformed had offered to answer for Mods, de Larroque’s good behaviour. He was afterwards chosen to be both minister and professor of divinity at Saumur. The former he accepted, but refused the professorship of divinity, as it might interfere with the study of church history, to ttfhich he was very partial. The intendant of the province, however, forbad him to go to Saumur; and although the church complained of this unjust prohibition, and petitoned very zealously for the necessary permission, which she obtained, Larroquc did not think it proper to enter upon an employment against the will of the intendant. He continued therefore still at Vitré, where he did not suffer his pen to be idle. Three of the most considerable churches of the kingdom chose him at once, the church of Moutauban, that of Bourdeaux, and thut of Roan. He accepted the invitation of Roan, and there died, Jan. 31, 1684, having gained the reputation not only of a learned man, but also of an honest man, and a faithful pastor.

Among those in Cambridge who favoured the reformation, the most considerable was Thomas Bilncy, a clergyman of a most holy life, who began to see popery in a very disagreeable light, and made no scruple to own it. Biiney was an intimate, and conceived a very favourable opinion, of Latimer; and, as opportunities offered, used to suggest to him many things about corruptions in religion, till be gradually divested him of his prejudices, brought him to think with moderation, and even to distrust what he had so earnestly embraced. Latimer no sooner ceased from being a zealous papist, than he became (such was his constitutional warmth) a zealous protesiunt; active in supporting the reformed doctrine, and assiduous to make converts both in town and university. He preached in public, exhorted in private, and everywhere pressed the necessity of a holy life, in opposition to ritual observances. A behaviour of this kind was immediately taken notice of: Cambridge, no less than the rest of the kingdom, was entirely popish, and every new opinion was watched with jealousy. Latimer soon perceived bow obnoxious he had made himself; and the first remarkable opposition he met with from the popish party, was occasioned by a course of sermons he preached, during the Christmas holidays, before the university; in which he spoke his sentiments with great freedom upon many opinions and usages maintained and practised in the Romish church, and particularly insisted upon the great abuse of locking up the Scriptures in an unknown tongue. Few of the tenets of popery were then questioned in England, but such as tended to a relaxation of morals; transubstantiation, and other points rather speculative, still held their dominion; Lattmer therefore chiefly dwelt upon those of immoral tendency. He shewed what true religion was, that it was seated in the heart; and that, in comparison with it, external appointments were of no value. Having a remarkable address in adapting himself to the capacities of the people, and being considered as a preacher of eminence, the orthodox clergy thought it high time to oppose him openly. This task was undertaken by Dr. Buckingham, prior of the Black-friars, who appeared in the pulpit a few Sundays after; and, with great pomp and prolixity, shewed the dangerous tendency of Latimer' s opinions; particularly inveighing against his heretical notions of having the Scriptures in English, laying open the bad effects of such an innovation. “If that heresy,” said he, “prevail, we should soon see an end of every thing useful among us. The ploughman, reading that if he put his hand to the plough, and should happen to look back, he was unfit for the kingdom of heaven, would soon lay aside his labour; the baker likewise reading, that a little leaven will corrupt his lump, would give us a very insipid bread; the simple man also finding himself commanded to pluck out his eyes, in a few years we should have the nation full of blind heg jars.” Latimer could not help listening with a secret pleasure to this ingenious reasoning; perhaps he had acted as prudently, if he had considered the prior’s arguments as unanswerable; but he could not resist the vivacity of his temper, which strongly inclined him to expose this solemn trirler. The whole university met together on MI ml ay, wnen it was known Mr. Latimer would preach. That vein of pleasantry and humour which run through all hiswords and notions, would here, it was imagined, have its full scope; and, to say the truth, the preacher was not a little conscious of his own superiority: to complete the scene, just before the sermon began, prior Buckingham himself entered the church with his cowl about his shoulders, and seated himself, with an air of importance, before the pulpit. Latimer, with great gravity, recapitulated the learned doctor’s arguments, placed them in the strongest light, and then rallied them with such a flow of wit, and at the same timt with so much good humour, that, without the appearance of ill-nature, he made his adversary in the highest degree ridiculous. He then, with great address, appealed to the people; descanted upon the low esteem in which their guides had always held their understandings; expressed the utmost offence at their being treated with such contempt, and wished his honest countrymen might only have the use of the Scripture till they shewed themselves such absurd interpreters. He concluded his discourse with a few observations upon scripture metaphors. A figurative manner of speech, he said, was common in all languages: representations of this kind were in daily use, and generally understood. Thus, for instance, continued he (addressing himself to that part of the audience where the prior was seated), when we see a fox painted preaching in a friar’s hood, nobody imagines that a fox is meant, but that craft aud hypocrisy are described, which are so often found disguised in that garb. But it is probable that Latimer thought this levity unbecoming; for when one Venetus, a foreigner, not long after, attacked him again upon the same subject, and in a manner the most scurrilous and provoking, we find him using a graver strain. Whether he ridiculed, however, or reasoned, with so much of the spirit of true oratory, considering the times, were his harangues animated, that they seldom failed of their intended effect; his raillery shut up the prior within his monastery; and his arguments drove Venctus from the university.

These advantages increased the credit of the protestant party in Cambridge, of which Bilney and Latimer were the leaders; and great was the alarm of the popish clergy, of which some were the heads of colleges, and senior part of the university. Frequent convocations were held, tutors were admonished to have a strict eye over their pupils, and academical censures of all kinds were inflicted. But academical censures were found insufficient. Latimer continued to preach, and heresy to spread. The heads of the popish party applied to the bishop of Ely, Dr. West, as their diocesan; but that prelate was not a man for their purpose; he was a papist indeed, but moderate, tie, however, came to Cambridge, examined the state of religion, and, at their intreaty, preached against the heretics; but he would do nothing farther; only indeed he silenced Mr. Latimer, which, as he had preached himself, was an instance of his prudence. But this gave no check to the reformers; for there happened at this time to be a protestant prior in Cambridge, Dr. Barnes, of the Austinfriars, who, having a monastery exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and being a great admirer of Latimer, boldly licensed him to preach there. Hither his party followed him; and, the late opposition having greatly excited the curiosity of the people, the friars’ chapel was soon incapable of containing the crowds that attended. Among others, it is remarkable, that the bishop of Ely was often one of his hearers, and had the ingenuousness to declare, that Latimer was one of the best preachers he had ever heard. The credit to his cause which Latimer had thus gained in the pulpit, he maintained by the piety of his life. Bilney and he did not satisfy themselves with acting unexceptionably, but were daily giving instances of goodness, which malice could not scandalize, nor envy misrepresent. They were always together concerting their schemes. The place where they used to walk, was long afterwards known by the name of the Heretics’ Hill. Cambridge at that time was full of their good actions; their charities to the poor, and friendly visits to the sick and unhappy, were then common topics. But these served only to increase the heat of persecution from their adversaries. Impotent themselves, and finding their diocesan either unable or unwilling to work their purposes, they determined upon an appeal to the higher powers; and heavy complaints were carried to court of the increase of heresy, not without formal depositions against the principal abettors of it.

Immediately upon the accession of Edward VI. he and all others who were imprisoned in the same cause, were set at liberty; and Latimer, whose old friends were now in power, was received by them with every mark of affection. He would have found no difficulty in dispossessing Heath, in every respect an insignificant man, who had succeeded to his bishopric: but he had other sentiments, and would neither make suit himself, nor suffer his friends to make any, for his restoration. However, this was done by the parliament, who, after settling the national concerns, sent up an address to the protector to restore him: and the protector was very well inclined, and proposed the resumption to Latimer as a point which he had very much at heart; but LatinYer persevered in the negative, alleging his great age, and the claim he had from thence to a private life. Having thus rid himself of all incumbrance, he accepted an invitation from Cranmer, and took up his residence at Lambeth, where he led a very retired life, being chiefly employed in hearing the complaints and redressing the injuries, of the poor people. And, indeed, his character for services of this kind was so universally known, that strangers from every part of England would resort to him, so that he had as crowded a levee as a minister of state. In these employments he spent more than two years, interfering as little as possible in any public transaction; only he assisted the archbishop in composing the homilies, which were set forth by authority in the first year of king Edward; he was also appointed to preach the Lent sermons before his majesty, which office he performed during the first three years of his reign. As to his sermons, which are still extant, they are, indeed, far enough from being exact pieces of composition: yet, his simplicity and familiarity, his humour and gibing drollery, were well adapted to the times; and his oratory, according to the mode of eloquence at that day, was exceedingly popular. His action and manner of preaching too were very affecting, for he spoke immediately from his heart His abilities, however, as an orator, made only the inferior part of his character as a preacher. What particularly recommends him is, that noble and apostolic zeal whi^h he exerts in the cause of truth.

But in the discharge of this duty a slander passed upon bim, which, being recorded by a low historian of those days, has found its way into ours. It is even recorded as credible by Milton, who suffered his zeal against episcopacy, in more instances than this, to bias his veracity, or at best to impose upon his understanding. It is said that after the lord high admiral’s attainder and execution, which happened about this time, he publicly defended his death in a sermon before the king; that he aspersed his character; and that he did it merely to pay a servile compliment to the protector. The first part of this charge is true; but the second and third are false. As to his aspersing the admiral’s character, his character was so bad, there was no room for aspersion; his treasonable practices too were notorious, and though the proceeding against him by a bill in parliament, according to the custom of these times, may be deemed inequitable, yet he paid no more than a due forfeit to the laxvs of his country. However, his death occasioned great clamour, and was made use of by the lords of the opposition (for he left a very dissatisfied party behind him), as an handle to raise a popular odium against the protector, for whom Latimer had always a high esteem. He was mortified therefore to see so invidious and base an opposition thwarting the schemes of so public-spirited a man; and endeavoured to lessen the odium, by shewing the admiral’s character in its true light, from some anecdotes not commonly known. This notice of lord Seymour, which was in Latimer' s fourth sermon before king Edward, is to be found only in the earlier editions.

Upon the revolution which happened at court after the death of the duke of Somerset, Latimer seems to have retired into the country, and made use of the king’s licence as a general preacher in those parts where he thought his labours might be most serviceable. He was thus employed during the remainder of that reign, and continued in the same course, for a short time, in the beginning of the next; but, as soon as the introduction of popery was resolved on, the first step towards it was the prohibition of all preaching throughout the kingdom, and a licensing only of such as were known to be popishly inclined: accordingly, a strict inquiry was made after the more forward and popular preachers; and many of them were taken into custody. The bishop of Winchester, who was now prime minister, having proscribed Latimer from the first, sent a message to cite him before the council. He had notice of this design some hours before the messenger’s arrival, but made no use of the intelligence. The messenger found him equipped for his journey; at which expressing surprize, Latimer told him that he was as ready to attend him to London, thus called upon to answer for his faith, as he ever was to take any journey in his life and that he doubted not but God, who had en- ­abled him to stand before two princes, would enable him to stand before a third. The messenger, then acquainting him that he had no orders to seize his person, delivered a letter, and departed. Latimer, however, opening the letter, and finding it contain a citation from the council, resolved to obey it. He set out therefore immediately; and, as he passed through Smithfield, where heretics were usually burnt, he said cheerfully, “This place hath long groaned for me.” The next morning he waited upon the council, who, having loaded him with many severe reproaches, sent him to the Tower. This was his second visit to this prison, but now he met with harsher treatment, and had more frequent occasion to exercise his resignation, which virtue no man possessed in a larger measure; nor did the usual cheerfulness of his disposition forsake him. A servant leaving his apartment one day, Latimer called after him, and bid him tell his master, that unless he took better care of him, he would certainly escape him. Upon this message the lieutenant, with some discomposure of countenance, came to Latimer, and desired an explanation. “Why, you expect, I suppose, sir,” replied Latimerj “that I should be burnt; but if you do not allow me a little fire this frosty weather, I can tell you, I shall first be starved.” Cranmer and Ridley were also prisoners in the same cause with Latimer; and when it was resolved to have a public disputation at Oxford, between the most eminent of the popish and protestant divines, these three were appointed to manage the dispute on the part of the protestants. Accordingly they were taken out of the Tower, and sent to Oxford, where they were closely confined in the common prison, and might easily imagine how free the disputation was likely to be, when they found themselves denied the use even of books, and pen and ink.

Amidst all these employments, his care was often exerted towards the place of his education, the university of Oxford. In order to rectify the factious and tumultuary manner of electing proctors, he fixed them to the several colleges by rotation, and caused to be put into order the jarring and imperfect statutes of that university, which had lain confused some hundreds of years. In April 1630 he was elected their chancellor; and he made it his business, thy rest of his life, to adorn the university with buildings, and to enrich it with books and Mss. In the first design he began with his own ‘college, St. John’s, where he built the inner quadrangle (except part of the south side of it, which was the old library) in a solid and elegant manner: the first stone of this design was laid in 1631. He also erected that elegant pile of building at the west-end of the divinity-schooL known by the name of the convocationhouse below, and Selclen’s library above ; and gave the university, at several’ times, 1300 Mss. in Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Armenian, Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Latin, Italian, French, Saxon, English, and Irish; an invaluable collection, procured at a prodigious expence.

Thus, by a few simple, accurate, and well-chosen experiments, Lavoisier had apparently arrived at the legitimate inference, that during the process of the formation of acids, whether with carbonaceous matter, sulphur, or phosphorus, and also during that of the calcination of metals, an absorption and fixation of air take place; and thus he gained a glimpse of principles, in the view of which hit singular sagacity in devising experiments, and his accuracy in executing them, would in all probability have alone conducted him to those brilliant results to which Dr. Priestley so materially contributed. The synthetic proofs only of this union of air with the base bad been as yet ascertained; but Dr. Priestley first furnished the analytic proof, by dissevering the combination; a discovery which at once advanced the nascent theory of Lavoisier, and, in his hands, became the source of more than one important conclusion. In August 1774, Dr. Priestley discovered that by heating certain metallic calces, especially the calcined mercury (the precipitate per sc, as it was then called) a quantity of air was separated, while the mercury resumed its metallic form; and this air, which he found was much purer than that of the atmosphere, he called, from the theory of the time, dephlogisticated air. Having communicated this discovery to Lavoisier, the latter published a memoir in 1775, in which he shewed, in conformity with the experiments of Dr. Priestley, that the mercurial precipitate per se t by being heated in a retort, gives out a highly respirable air (called since oxygeri]^ and is itself reduced to the metallic state; that combustible bodies burn in this air with increased brilliancy; and that the same mercurial calx, if heated with charcoal, gives out not the pure air, but fixed air; whence he concluded that fixed air is composed of charcoal and the pure air. It has, therefore, since been called carbonic acid. A second very important consequence of Dr. Priestley’s discovery of the pure or vital air, was the analysis of the air of the. atmosphere, which was accomplished by Lavoisier in the following manner. He included some mercury in a close vessel, together with a known quantity of atmospheric air, and kept it for some days in a boiling state; by degrees a small quantity of the red calx was formed upon the surface of the metal; and when this ceased to be produced the contents of the vessel were examined. The air was found to be diminished both in bulk and weight, and to have been rendered altogether incapable of supporting combustion or animal life; part of the mercury was found converted into the red calx, or precipitate per se; and, which was extremely satisfactory, the united weight of the mercury and the precipitate exceeded the weight of the original mercury, by precisely the same amount as the air had lost. To complete the demonstration, the precipitate was then heated, according to Dr. Priestley’s first experiment, and decomposed into fluid mercury and an air which had all the properties of vital air; and this air, when mixed with the unrespirable residue of the original air of the receiver, composed an elastic fluid possessing the same properties a atmospherical air. The vital air was afterwards made the subject of various experiments in respect to the calcination of metals, to the combustion and conversion of sulphur and phosphorus into acids, &c. in which processes it was found to be the chief agent. Hence it was named by Lavoisier oxygen (or generator of acids), and the unrespirable residue of the atmosphere was called azot (i. e. incapable of supporting life).

, bishop of Carlisle, was born in the parish of Cartmel in Lancashire, in 1703. His father, who was a clergyman, held a small chapel in that neighbourhood, but the family had been situated at Askham, in the county of Westmoreland. He was educated for some time at Cartmel school, afterwards at the free grammar-school at Kendal; from which he went, very well instructed ia the learning of grammar-schools, to St. John’s college, Cambridge. He took his bachelor’s degree in 1723, and soon after 'was elected fellow of Christ’s-college in that university, where he took his master’s degree in 1727. During his residence here, he became known to the public by a translation of archbishop King’s (see William King) “Essay upon the Origin of Evil,” with copious notes; in which many metaphysical subjects, curious and interesting in their own nature, are treated of with great ingenuity, learning, and novelty. To this work was prefixed, under the name of a “Preliminary Dissertation,” a very valuable piece written by Mr. Gay of Sidney-college. Our bishop always spoke of this gentleman in terms of the greatest respect. “In the Bible, and in the writings of Locke, no man,” he used to say, “was so well versed.”

Mr. Law also, whilst at Christ’s-college, undertook and went through a very laborious part, in preparing for the press, an edition of “Stephens’s Thesaurus.” His acquaintance, during his first residence in the university, was principally with Dr. Waterland, the learned master of Magdalen-college; Dr. Jortin, a name known to every scholar; and Dr. Taylor, the editor of Demosthenes.